Standard English: Elitist or Essential? JOSH COOPER accesses the views of pedants and progressives.

Is there such thing as a ‘correct’ way to use the language? The term ‘Standard English’ is most commonly regarded as “[t]he form of the English language widely accepted as the usual correct form” (English Living Oxford Dictionaries), so many people argue ‘yes.’ For instance, Honey (1997) states that “the use of Standard English confers intellectual advantages on those who speak and write it […]” (p. 21-22). However, others argue that as English is a global language with so many varieties both nationally and worldwide, “Standard English cannot be ‘correct’ or ‘superior’ because it is simply just one particular variety of the language” (Bex and Watts, 1999, p. 118).

But what exactly does Standard English mean? Perera (1994) highlights that on the one hand it is interpreted to mean ‘excellence,’ which implies a superior form. On the other hand, it is associated with ‘uniformity’ suggesting that the ‘standard’ is a practical form which attempts to reduce variability (p. 81). So, is ‘Standard English’ a high-achieving ‘elitist’ form whose usage marks out the privileged class with all its associated advantages, or is it simply facilitating an agreed usage – a matter of essential convenience for the ease of effective communication?

These differences in opinion are highlighted in the linguistic complaint tradition, which has existed since the Middle Ages. One of the most significant early complaints came from William Caxton (1490), who worried that there was too much variability in the English language when it came to the practicalities of early printing. Choosing to print in the dialect of those who lived in the East Midlands dialect area (which included London, Oxford and Cambridge) accidentally contributed to kick-starting the process of ‘standardisation’ whereby that dialect became a communication bridge for people from different regions so they could understand and effectively communicate with one another (Milroy and Milroy, 1999, p. 27). This choice was not based on grounds of linguistic superiority, but was a practical decision because this area “[…] was the most prominent politically, commercially and academically,” and this variety actually formed the basis of the standard we know today (Milroy and Milroy, 1999, p. 27).

In comparison, during the eighteenth century most complaints adopted a prescriptive, judgmental attitude to language. Prescriptivism is simply “the attitude or belief that one variety of a language is superior to others and should be promoted as such” (About Education), and therefore writers and complainers during this time mostly argued that there was indeed a correct and incorrect way to use the language.

Significant prescriptive thinkers during this time include Bishop Robert Lowth (1762) and Lindley Murray (1795) who wrote grammar textbooks outlining how they believed the language ought to be used, and these included rules that we are still familiar with today such as the ban on double negatives (Milroy and Milroy, 1999, p. 28). At this point, it is important to highlight that there was never any linguistic explanation as to why one variety and usage was favoured over another. So is ‘good’ English simply a matter of authoritarian opinion? If so, then surely anyone could argue that his or her variety is ‘correct’ and with the right power start influencing the way we speak and write?

Nevertheless, these prescriptive complaints still flourish in the language today. For example, in his book Simply English An A to Z of Avoidable Errors, Simon Heffer (2014) reports on what he believes is correct usage. He argues for instance, that the word ‘access’ is incorrect if used as a verb and should thus only be used as a noun as in ‘can I gain access?’ (Heffer, 2014, p. 8). Isn’t this attitude rather pedantic and traditionalist? After all, language meanings and usages are permanently changing. Surely as long as the respondent understands, that is all that matters?

Trudgill (2016) expresses his opinion on this when he argues that prescriptive attitudes to language are both pointless and a waste of time because all they succeed in achieving is making individuals feel insecure about their use of language (p. 25). He goes on to state that we should accept the fact that the language is variable and “see this for the fascinating fact that it is, and not keep trying to make judgements about ‘correctness’” (Trudgill, 2016, p. 26).

As noted in the introduction, Standard English is generally regarded as the ‘correct’ and therefore ‘good’ form by definition. By implication, this means that other forms will naturally be viewed as inferior and non-standard. But how can this be when the language is permanently changing through constant influxes from both other languages and technology? It is difficult to argue that one fossilized form is the gold standard.

JOSH COOPER, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

About Education. (2016). Prescriptivism.

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

English Living Oxford Dictionary (2016) Standard English.

Heffer, S. (2014). Simply English: An A to Z of avoidable errors. London, United Kingdom: Random House Books.  

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.

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

Are we literally Gwynne mad? CURTIS PRIDAY launches an inquiry into language anxieties

The ways the English Language should be used causes great debate not only amongst academics, but amongst the general public also. Language use can provoke anxiety and even rage when people feel that it is being misused. This anger can be sparked from as little as a misplaced apostrophe to larger issues such as how grammar is being taught in schools. In this blog I am going to focus on semantics and grammar.

It is the view of prescriptivists that words have very specific meanings and should only be used in situations that fit their exact definitions. Two such prescriptivists are Neville Gwynne and Simon Heffer. Gwynne and Heffer feel so passionately about grammar that they wrote the books Gwynne’s Grammar (2013) and Simply English (2014) respectively. Gwynne (2013, p. X) firmly opposes the view that allowing language users to use language freely will lead to language creativity. He believes that the education system should strive to teach children the basics of grammar as they’ll be unable to “flourish at it” until they master these basics. In a TV interview, Gwynne even goes as far to say that the fabric of society hinges on the proper usage of grammar (no seriously, he does, check it out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdaP1-2UeXw).

Heffer, (a Daily Telegraph journalist), shares Gwynne’s language view. He has penned several strongly worded articles on word usage, which led to the publication of Simply English (2014) and before this Strictly English (2011). Within his book, Heffer highlights many words which he feels are being wrongly in contemporary discourse. He cites, for instance, ‘inquiry’ and ‘literally’. The modern usage of these words is slightly different to their dictionary definitions. By definition an inquiry is “a formal investigation” and ‘literally’ means “with exact fidelity of representation”. However, an ‘inquiry ‘is often used when people say they have a question and ‘literally’ can be used to add emphasis (e.g. ‘I literally died laughing’). Heffer and Gwynne believe English words have a set semantic meaning and should only be used in the correct context. If these words are not used in the correct context then it can have a negative impact on society because language users are not being able to sufficiently articulate what they mean.

Descriptivists sit firmly on the other side of the fence to Gwynne and Heffer, being of the more liberal opinion that as long as the correct meaning is inferred then language is fulfilling its purpose, regardless of whether it is adhering to a set of rules. An article in The Guardian (2014) even went as far to say that prescriptive attitudes cause more harm to the English language than those who supposedly use language incorrectly, claiming that, “[o]utdated grammar rules are off-putting when they create a barrier to clear communication”. Language’s primary function is communication and understanding. If language users are able to communicate what they want to say in a way that the receiver of the information is able to understand what they meant, then they feel that there is not a problem. Descriptivists see language as a fluid, ever-changing tool for communication.

The National Post (2017) wrote, “English is constantly evolving […] therefore, if the way language is being used is constantly changing, then the rules associated with language are too.” This is a view that is obviously shared by the OED. Here, the word ‘literally’ has had a new meaning entered for it: “used for emphasis rather than actually being true” (I doubt Heffer will have been pleased to hear about that…).

Which side of the fence do I sit on you may ask? Well neither! I sit firmly on the fence alongside Professor Geoffrey Pullum. In a 2014 interview with the Daily Telegraph, Pullum explained it is nonsensical to wholly side with either the prescriptivist or descriptivist viewpoint. He claims it is more appropriate to find “a sensible middle ground where you decide what the rules of Standard English are, on the basis of close study of the way that native speakers use the language”.

So there you have it, there are those intent on prescribing rules and along with it a ascribing prestige to certain aspects language, whilst there are others who believe language should be used freely without constraints. Regardless of which side of the argument is right (both have their strengths and weaknesses), language will continue to evolve and change naturally irrespective of the wishes of those who attempt to guide it in a certain way.

CURTIS PRIDAY, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester

References

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

Heffer, S. (2014). Simply English; an A to Z of avoidable errors. London: Penguin.

 

 

Is there simply ‘good’ and ‘bad’ English? Are you with Taylor or Jonathan Swift on grammar? PENNY ADAMS explores ‘rules’ and ‘rules’

Does seeing an incorrectly placed apostrophe make your language senses tingle? If so, like many others out there, you would be considered a prescriptivist. A prescriptivist can be defined as a person who “wants to tell you how you ought to speak and write”, while their counter parts, descriptivists, “want to tell how people actually do speak and write” (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, p.5.). For a large proportion of the general public, these terms may seem alien, as most would probably recognise a prescriptivist by a different name; ‘Grammar Nazi’s’. On hearing the alternative name, used most favourably by the media, there may be some people who would disassociate themselves from the prescriptivist ideology. However, to some extent, all attitudes to language, whether popular or academic, hold ideologies which can be seen as prescriptivist (Cameron, 1995, p.4.).

Whilst it is recognised that everyone has certain prescriptivist attitudes to language, some take this authoritarian attitude to language more seriously than others. British journalist and author, Simon Heffer, notes that “[g]rammar is the foundation of good style. Its violation or disregard has the same effect on language as amputating limbs from a healthy being” (2014, p.160.). His passionate belief in following certain grammatical rules culminated in the writing of the book from which this quote is taken, Simply English. The book is an attempt to educate the general public on the ways to use English ‘correctly’. This popularist view that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ English exists, raises questions about the reasons why people judge language in this way.

One theory which provides reason for people’s judgement of English is the fear of the decline of English. Aitchison states that “a wide web of worries, a cobweb of old ideas, ensnares people as they think about English” (1997, p.2.). By looking back at English, we can see that it did not always have a fixed grammar system. During the 18^th century, there was much admiration for the fixed grammar system of Latin, which was a particularly prestigious language (Aitchison, 1997, p.4.). This period saw an overhaul in the grammar system of English, and an increase in the number of grammar books, such as Robert Lowth’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar, which detailed how the English grammar system worked. Many believe it is this fixed grammar system that adds prestige to the English Language and if this system is not adhered to, English will fall into decline.

Attempting to adhere to this fixed grammar system does cause some issues. The English language is constantly evolving, and therefore some of the grammar rules that were in place 300 years ago are no longer used. If these grammar rules are constantly changing, then how can we be sure which rules should be adhered to? The Princeton Review faced this problem when they used Taylor Swift’s song ‘fifteen’ as evidence of bad grammar in their practice test papers. But, it was later pointed out that not only had they got the lyrics wrong, the correct lyrics are not grammatically incorrect (The Guardian, 2015).  The Princeton Review then attempted to rectify the situation by claiming “the accurate lyric is still grammatically wrong, on the grounds that ‘somebody’ cannot later be referred to as ‘them’”(The Guardian, 2015). What they seem to be forgetting is that ‘them’ has been used as a gender-neutral singular pronoun for ages. The problem caused by these prescriptivist attitudes is that “invented language rules often get confused with genuine language rules” (Aitchison, 1997, p.5.). People confuse the genuine rules of the English Language, such as verb tenses and subject-verb-object structure with invented rules, such as not using double negatives. Problems occur when the importance of invented rules are over stated by prescriptivists.

Another potential reason for prescriptivist attitudes to language is that “although discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, gender or social class is not now publicly acceptable, it appears that discrimination on linguistic grounds is publicly acceptable” (Milroy & Milroy, 1999, p.2.). This use of prescriptivism as a form of discrimination is reflected in the Guardian article, as academics criticise celebrity/pop culture on the grounds that they will influence the ‘bad’ grammar habits of the general public.

To summarise, everyone, to some extent has a prescriptive attitude towards language. It is problematic to discuss the English Language completely prescriptively, but it is also just as problematic to discuss English completely descriptively, due to personal backgrounds and beliefs. Therefore, we can all recognise that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ English does exist, but the more interesting question is why this juxtaposition exists.

PENNY ADAMS, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester

References

Aitchison, J. (1997). The Language Web: The power and problems of words. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. The Politics of Language. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Heffer, S. (2014). Simply English; An A to Z of avoidable errors. London, United Kingdom: Penguin.

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

Lowth, R. (1799). A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. Montana, United States: Kessinger Publishing.

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in Language: investigating Standard English. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Poole, S. (2015, March 26). Taylor Swift’s grammar marked down incorrectly. The Guardian. 

Does verbal hygiene equal verbal sterility? ELLA SPARKS considers how linguists approach the cleansing of language

The binary debate around language use is often portrayed in terms of ‘prescriptivism’ versus ‘descriptivism’. Prescriptivism is defined by Nordquist (2015) as “the attitude or belief that one variety of a language is superior to others and should be promoted as such”, whereas a descriptivist observes language and its changes, rather than enforcing rules to control it (Curzan, 2014, Cameron, 1995). Some embrace non-standard variations whilst others are passionate to scrutinize and eradicate these so-called imperfect usages.

As a linguist, I am taught to have descriptivist views on language; however this is not always the case. Cameron (1995, p.14) highlights how linguists argue that they are non- judgemental descriptivists, but she believes this to be false as they have been schooled to use the Standard English, just like most people who would place themselves in the ‘prescriptivist’ camp. Cameron (1995, p.14) believes the better education one receives, the more ingrained the response will be to criticise others’ language use, but a linguist would argue that they do not act upon this feeling. Cameron (1995, p.14) states that the same irritation towards non-standard use exists and it is programmed in us once the standard has been taught. She therefore prefers to call this type of linguist, a “verbal hygienist”, who silently corrects people’s grammar and other elements of language but does not aim to control their usage, like a prescriptivist would tend to do.

There are many people who believe there is a correct and incorrect way of using the English language and have written prescriptivist handbooks to educate others on their opinions. Burt (2004, p.72) wrote the book, Quick Solutions to Common Errors in English, where she explicitly states how imperative the ‘correct’ use of English is in relation to  features such as spelling and grammar. She defines, for example, the spelling ‘distroy’ instead of ‘destroy’ as wrong, whereas a descriptivist such as Mackinnon (2007, p.251) would define this as a variation due to people still being able to comprehend the correct meaning. He describes a spelling mistake as a “breach of human made rules and conventions” rather than logically incorrect (like claiming two plus two equals five) in and of itself, and applies this notion to all aspects of language (Mackinnon, 2007, p.251). He even suggests that this is “a state of affairs that Shakespeare would have felt at ease with” due to his name being spelt in many different ways (Mackinnon, 2007).

Some people, however, feel more strongly about the ‘correct’ use of English. Spelling conventions are generally adhered to in formal contexts such as in an academic essay, as bad spelling is associated with unintelligence. But, grammar on the other hand is usually only taught in formal education and as long as there is effective communication, non-standard grammar is generally permissible. Nevile Gwynne (2013) however, considers grammar use to be as serious as life and death; the source of all happiness. He is a controversial character who is publicly vocal about how there is a correct and incorrect way of using language, there being no in-between. He recently published the book Gwynne’s Grammar (2013), to try and promote the use of standardised grammar rules and conventions, much like the dictionary has done for spellings. He does not believe a dictionary should be a representation of current language; it should consist only of words which have stood the test of time (Gwynne, 2013). However this is subjective, as how long does a word have to exist before it is legitimate in Gwynne’s eyes? Also the Oxford English Dictionary (2016) highlights it is “an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words, past and present” not just the past like Gwynne suggests.

In formal contexts, mostly written, I believe language should be used in accordance to standard writing conventions with regards spelling and grammar. However, in an informal medium such as Twitter, expressing thoughts using non-standard grammar would not offend me. Some people’s language use when criticising others, irritates me as they themselves often fail to follow the very guidelines they are prescribing. I agree with Cameron (1995), that having a formal education subconsciously triggers some frustration when others flout the standard rules as they know what is correct. Many will not admit that they care about other people’s language use but sometimes I do, so therefore I would class myself as in between a descriptivist and prescriptivist. I do not try to clean up language like a verbal hygienist would, yet not conforming to standard writing conventions in formal contexts I will admit, would aggravate me. But, as long as communication is successful in whatever form it may take, there is not too much of a problem is there?

ELLA SPARKS, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Burt, A. (2004). Quick solutions to Common Errors in English. Oxford, United Kingdom: How To Books Ltd.

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

Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gwynne, N. (2013). Gwynne’s Grammar. Ebury Press

Mackinnon, D. (2007). Making judgements about English. In J. Maybin, N. Mercer & A. Hewings (Eds.) Using English (pp. 245-275). Abingdon: Routledge.

Nordquist, R. (2015). About Education. Retrieved April 19, 2016

OED Online. (2016). Oxford University Press. Retrieved April 19, 2016

Damp spoons, crumbling castles and infectious diseases. AMBER PICKERING discusses the pros and cons of language change

Arguments surrounding the prescriptive and descriptive approaches to language have been going on for as long as anyone can remember, but what should we make of this and who are these people? Well, prescriptivists are people who, according to Trask (1999, p. 73) believe that language is “a matter of what people ought to say”. In other words, it is thought that there is a set of grammatical rules that people should abide by in order to keep language from ever changing, because prescriptivists hate that. Descriptivists on the other hand are a little more laid back, and adopt a less controlling perspective on language. Descriptivists aim to observe language and figure out how it works, rather than prescribe how it should be used. Crystal states, “[a] descriptive grammar describes the form, meaning and use of grammatical units and construction in a language, without making any evaluative judgements about their standing in society” (2006, p. 231).

Prescriptivist attitudes date back to the 17^th century, when Jonathon Swift proposed in 1712 that we needed to ‘fix’ language. As a way of attempting to standardise and regularise the English language, he tried to take on the French approach of having an ‘Academy’. However, this was a flop and the introduction of an English academy was quite frankly, not meant to be. Ironically, Oldmixon’s Reflections on Dr Swift’s letter to the Earl of Oxford, about the English Tongue criticised Swift’s attempt throughout, implying “Swift was no fit person to suggest standards for the language” (McIntyre, 2009, p. 158), due to his vulgar English.

Swift’s proposal for an English academy may have failed, but that did not stop other linguists from having an opinion about language. Jean Aitchison proposed in 1997 that there are three possible metaphors, or myths which encapsulate people’s anxieties about what they perceive to be language ‘decay’ and ‘erosion’, which she believes to be false. The ‘Damp Spoon Syndrome’ implies that people have become lazy with language, “precisely the kind of distaste I feel at seeing a damp spoon dipped in the sugar bowl…” (1997, p. 9-10). Aitchison criticised this point stating, “[t]he only truly lazy speech is drunken speech… and English is not getting like drunken speech” (1997, p. 10).

The ‘Crumbling Castle View’ is another of Aitchison’s metaphors, which is the tendency of people to treat language as an ornate building that once had a peak of perfection but is now falling apart. However, Aitchison disagrees with this claim based on the fact that there has never been a time when English had reached its ultimate “peak of perfection” (1997, p. 12), implying it is not possible to preserve something that is constantly changing.

Lastly comes the ‘Infectious Disease Assumption’, which is the view that people pick up language change by trying to fit in with what is new within language and society. Aitchison summarised this assumption implying it is normal behaviour, claiming “[p]eople pick up changes because they want to. They want to fit in with social groups, and they want to adapt their hairstyle, clothes, and language to those of people they admire.” (1997, p. 14).

So is having a descriptive attitude to language the way forward? Well, not necessarily. Although descriptivism seems like the more laid back and friendly view to have about language, it does not come without its faults. Crystal’s 2006 ‘potato’s as a test case’ theory regarding green-grocers’ apostrophes, indicates how meaning is still provided in words where it would not necessarily matter if they had an apostrophe or not, such as in potato’s, or tomato’s.  To omit the apostrophe would not have an effect on the meaning of the word, because “[t]here is not the slightest ambiguity when we see a sign outside a shop advertising potato’s” (2006, p. 455), due to it being common knowledge that is it not possible for inanimate objects to possess things.  However, that is not to say that we do not need apostrophes altogether; in fact it is very important that we do have rules such as punctuation, as to carelessly punctuate could lead to people interpreting what you’re saying in the wrong way.

So how do these ideas co-exist in our language, when they are so opposed to one another? Personally, I think that it is not possible for the English language to work without prescriptivist and descriptivist attitudes; we need a balance of both. On one hand language has to keep changing to stay current within the 21^st century. However we also need punctuation and grammatical rules in order to be able to understand each other. As Mesthrie (2009, p. 19) says – a “compromise position therefore seems possible”, for language to be successful.

AMBER PICKERING, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Aitchison, J. (1997). The language web: the power and problems of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2006). How language works: how babies babble, words change meanings and languages live or die. London: Penguin.

McIntyre, D. (2009). History of English: a resource book for students. Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Mesthrie, R. (2009). Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Edinburgh University Press.

Trask, R. L. (1999). Language: the basics. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

The greengrocer’s apostrophe and the ‘ten items’ supermarket sign. MEGAN PIKE investigates our continuing obsession with language ‘correctness’

Once upon a time, ‘silly’ used to refer to things which were blessed or worthy, and ‘nice’ made reference to someone who was silly. The English language is forever evolving and changing…. Fact! (TED, 2014) So why do people fight so hard to preserve and maintain this ‘perfect’ English language? Why do they continue to fight a losing battle?

Firstly, we should address exactly who these people are: they are often referred to as prescriptivists (although others may have a slightly different name for them). When there is a grammar mistake on a Facebook post, they will be there to comment. When Tesco’s say ‘ten items or less’ rather than ‘ten items or fewer’, you can guarantee they will have their pens at the ready to complain. They believe that the English language should be regulated, and that a correct way of speaking and writing should be ‘prescribed’ (Crystal, 2006).  But the real question is, do they have a point?

Aitchison (1997, pp. 9-14) explored how people’s obsession with maintaining the language stems from the fears and worries that come with language change. With three (slightly overlapping) ideas she explains the main concerns with the English language with what she labels ‘the damp spoon syndrome’, ‘the crumbling castle effect’ and ‘the infectious diseases theory’. In all of these ideas the English language is referred to as a physical entity that can be tarnished in some way. From new words coming in to the language being described as a disease to colloquial language being related to the same laziness that would cause someone to use a wet spoon to get sugar, these accusations paint language change in a vividly negative way.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the descriptivists. They believe in the observation of language change rather than attempting to regulate it (Trask, 2007 p. 69). The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), often referred to as the ‘authority’ on the English language, are themselves descriptivist. Over the past 150 years they have documented the change of English over the last 1,000 years. Because of this we can now trace the origins of over 600,000 words (OED, 2016). They aim to change with the language, not cause a change in language. Many linguists support this approach to language change, with Lakoff (as reported in Cameron, 1995, p.4) reporting that as long as language change comes from within and is an unconscious process rather than an attempt to manipulate the language, then language change is healthy.

If we take language in its bare form, as a form of communication, then as long as the change does not hinder communication, then surely change is good. David Crystal (2006, p.455) explains this idea through the example of the ‘greengrocer’s apostrophe’. If a greengrocer was to misuse an apostrophe on his sign displaying what he has in the shop, it would have no effect on the legibility or connotations of the sign. Whether he sells ‘potatoes’’ or ‘potatoe’s’, the place of the apostrophe does not affect the message, so why should it matter? The message is still conveyed, therefore the texts meets its purpose.

However, although there are many positives to allowing language change, prescriptivists have a point. There are many cases of careless punctuation that, for example, would confuse the message behind it and therefore lose clarity. For example, there is a very big difference between ‘let’s eat, grandma’ and ‘let’s eat grandma’! The comma is essential for differentiating between eating with grandma or eating grandma.  There is also the issue of how far should we let change happen. In 2015 the Oxford English Dictionary made its word of the year a ‘crying with laughter emoji’ (OED, 2016), and even many open minded people would agree that this is perhaps pushing it too far.

Obviously, there is no stopping language change, and generally I tend to side more with descriptivism. However, sometimes the careless use of a comma, lack of a full stop or misapplication of a word can result in major misunderstandings and, at times like this, it makes far more sense to side with the prescriptivists. Hence, if the best aspects are taken from both extremes of the debate then we can reach a balance, which will allow the language to grow without loss of legibility.

MEGAN PIKE, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester

References

Aitchison, J. (1997). The language web: the power and problems of words. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal Hygiene, The politics of Language. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Crystal, D. (2006). How language works: how babies babble, words change meanings and languages live or die. London, United Kingdom: Penguin.

OED Online. (2016). Oxford University Press. Retrieved March 17, 2016, from http://www.oed.com

TED. (2014). Ideas TED. Retrieved April 1, 2016.

Trask, R. L. (1999). Language: the basics. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Do you’dibble’ or ‘dabble’ with language? OLIVIA BOWEN takes issue with the descriptive/prescriptive divide

Dibble and dabble; is this a ‘correct’ use of language? Did my use of colloquialisms hinder my communicative intent or was the message perfectly clear? These questions will be explored as I discuss the dichotomy between descriptivism and prescriptivism.

Prescriptivist attitudes towards the English language date back to the 16^th century where Thomas Wilson (1553) condemned the abuse of ‘inkhorn terms’. These are Greek and Latin loan words which were used by adding the suffix ‘-ate’ to them. These forms were mocked by Wilson at the time, but if we celebrate and contemplate almost 500 years later (Dionne & Kapadia, 2008) does this mean that language change is such a bad thing? The idea that we should be preserving, or cleaning up language is prevalent in prescriptivism – and this provokes an overwhelming rejection of the notion from 21^st century linguists.

Mackinnon (1996) disagrees with the principle of applying the term ‘incorrect’ to non-standard language usages. He is in opposition to “those who attempt to lay down or prescribe rules which tend to favour one variety of another” (p.248) – a definition which provides a simplified picture of a prescriptivist. Instead he has little sympathy for those who insist on correctness in grammar, spelling and meaning, without recognising that ‘correctness’ depends on how language is actually used and that genuine mistakes are of little importance as long as the message has clarity.

Some linguists find the phrases used by purists- ‘incorrect’ or ‘not English’- offensive and see that language should only be cleaned up depending on the situation – appropriateness as a substitute for correctness. Aitchison (1994) for example, states that “the right words and style for the right occasion, and… no one ‘style’ is correct at all times” (p. 266). But, could this not be seen as a nod in the prescriptivist direction? As Mackinnon argues, there are particular styles which could be considered correct, and incorrect at some times. Therefore, whilst some prescriptivists might state that the major factor affecting English spelling is the influence of electronic modes of communication such as texting or social media, linguists (Horobin, 2013) – those in favour of substituting correctness for appropriateness – would claim that abbreviations speed up the process of communication and add an informality appropriate to these means. However, if used in an exam, these would be deemed inappropriate. This allows me to question whether you can really be one or the other, as replacing ‘correctness’ for ‘appropriateness’ still brings about judgements about language that linguists claim to disassociate with, but prescriptivists seem to embrace. Just as there is a disagreement about what is correct, there is disagreement about what is appropriate for different contexts.

With the view that judging and correcting language is pedantic, it is possible that some linguists swing too far in the opposite direction. Sometimes the extreme descriptivist view seems to be taken that abandoning a rule of traditional grammar leaves us with no grammar at all. This is when the prescriptivism/descriptivism opposition becomes a spectrum. Cameron (1995), for example states that, as a trained academic within the field of linguistics, she has had a high standard of schooling and prescriptivist attitudes are a natural imposition to her. This view implies that any linguist who states they are a descriptivist are abandoning their education. She states we are all “closet Prescriptivists- or, as I prefer to call it, verbal hygienists” (p. 9).

As someone who considers themselves to be both a feminist and a linguistic descriptivist, Cameron has made me question whether this is logically possible. As a descriptivist takes a non-judgemental approach to language variety, when I am correcting others for their use of sexist language, am I not actually asking them to adapt their language to suit to my own set of prescriptivisms? Does this make my usage ‘correct’? It does not- but it does mean that due to my own norms and values, the need to correct sexist language pervades my thoughts and behaviour. So, I am ready to admit that I have an inbuilt intolerance to this type of language, but I do not wholeheartedly associate with the prescriptivist approach. Like ‘verbal hygiene’ I think it important to coin a new term which allows linguists to associate with both approaches to language.

OLIVIA BOWEN, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

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

Dionne, C. & Kapadia, P. (2008). Native Shakespeares: Indigenous Appropriations on a Global Stage. Hampshire, United Kingdom: British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

Horobin, S. (2013). Does Spelling Matter? London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

MacKinnon, D. (1996). ‘Making judgments about English’. In Graddol, D. Leith, D. Swann, J. (Eds.). English: History, Diversity and Change. (pp. 246-275). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Is Standard English superior to other dialects? NATASHA MASON considers the role of SE in schools.

To understand the debate surrounding Standard English, we need to explore what the term means. Many linguists struggle to define the term ‘Standard English’ and it is difficult to establish exactly what the rules of a standard language are. Hayley Davis defines Standard English as a “variety of English which is usually used in print, and which is normally taught in schools and to non-native speakers learning the language” (1999:70). Although this definition explains the context in which Standard English is used, it does not explore the forms of language that constitute a Standard English. Tony Crowley insists in differentiating between a spoken and written Standard English and attempts to define ‘Standard Spoken English’ through the suggestion of what it is not: “Standard spoken English’ […] can be defined in terms of difference, which is to say that we know what ‘Standard English’ is  because we know what it is not (it is not vulgar, provincial, uneducated, inarticulate, uncivilised, bad, evil or perverted English)” (2003: 207).

Here, Crowley essentially just uses the assumptions of others’ opinions to define Standard spoken English. Taking these definitions into consideration, it is evident that Standard English is void of an exact definition, which makes it difficult to reach a sound conclusion regarding whether a Standard English is the ‘correct’ English to teach in schools.

The Newbolt Report of 1921 conveys a very prescriptivist attitude towards Standard English. The report states that “[i]t is emphatically the business of the Elementary School to teach all its pupils who either speak a definite dialect or whose speech is disfigured by vulgarisms, to speak standard English, and to speak it clearly, and with expression’ (The Newbolt Report, 1926: 65). Overall this is a negative outlook on those who don’t speak the standard. The Bullock Report of 1975 portrays a more liberal and open-minded attitude towards English. The report states that “[t]he aim is not to alienate the child from a form of language with which he has grown up and which serves him efficiently in the speech community of his neighbourhood. It is to enlarge his repertoire so that he can use language effectively in other speech situations and use standard forms when they are needed (The Bullock Report, 1975: 143).

The contrasting attitudes in these reports highlight how attitudes towards language have changed over time.

John Honey was one (controversial) linguist who argued that he was more in favour of similar (old-fashioned) attitudes conveyed by The Newbolt Report. Honey believed that Standard English is superior to all other forms of English and to achieve equality all children should be taught Standard English and use it in every communicative situation (Honey: 1997). This clearly indicates Honey’s attitude towards other non-standard varieties of English. However, having a Standard English is useful. Ronald Carter suggests that “Standard English consists of a set of forms which are used with only minimal variation in written English and in a range of formal spoken contexts in use around the world. Such forms constitute the basis for the teaching of English internationally” (Carter: 1999, 163).

Carter puts forth an interesting and valid argument, that yes, having a standard language is of course useful when taking into consideration that it has minimal variation and can therefore be used as a global language in order for people to communicate internationally. However, Honey suggests that “[t]he speakers of non-standard social and regional dialect forms suffer comparable forms of disadvantage” (1997: 21-22). Honey believed therefore that those who are not taught to speak and write in Standard English are not as intelligent as those who do speak and write in it. This is a problematic assumption to make, and many, like myself, disagree. Carter quotes Perera who claims that “[p]upils who speak non-standard English do so not because they are unintelligent or because they have not been well taught, but because it is the variety of English used all the time by their family and friends’ (1999: 164). If one can communicate successfully using a regional dialect then surely it is unproblematic to avoid using Standard English. Is it really necessary to enforce a use of Standard English at all times? Or should it depend on context, or situation?

NATASHA MASON, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Carter, R. (1999) ‘Standard Grammars, spoken grammars: Some educational implications’ in Bex, T. and Watts, Richard J. (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate London: Routledge.

Crowley, T. (2003) ‘Language against Modernity’ in Standard English and the Politics of Language. (2nd edn) Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Davis, H. (1999) ‘Typography, lexicography, and the development of the idea of ‘standard English’’ in Bex, T. and Watts, Richard J. (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate London: Routledge.

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

The Newbolt Report (1921) <http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/newbolt/>

The Bullock Report (1975) <http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/bullock/>

‘Rules is rules’. Or are they? ALEXANDRA GRAHAM explores the prescriptive/descriptive language divide

Prescriptive and descriptive approaches to language, though opposing ideas, both share opinions on how language should be treated and maintained. Prescriptivism is essentially the idea that language should have rules which need to be adhered to and is “a matter of what people ought to say” (Trask: 1999: 73). Contrastingly, descriptivism takes the hands-off approach to language, and rather than attempting to try and enforce rules and regulations, simply devotes itself to explaining how and why such language works (Curaz 2014: 15).

Given this information, does one idea have merit over the other? Prescriptivism gained a major foothold around the eighteenth century, when a variety of English had evolved into standard, and all other forms were perceived as less good as a consequence. Fast forward to today, and there is still a need for Standard English. According to Lynch, (2009: 19) “we need the rules of English, say the prescriptivists, to communicate clearly”. Furthermore, the need for Standard English is generally necessary in various professions such as law and business. There is great emphasis on the need for children and foreign speakers to learn the standard form, and for there to be a strict set of language dos and don’ts.

However, prescriptivism does not exist without faults. According to Endley, (2010: 20) all languages change, and there is no way to stop this from happening. From a prescriptive point of view, however, any change in language should not be accepted. Prescriptivism, though certainly idealistic, does appear to be somewhat unattainable. For one thing, language is always changing and it is difficult to pin down a set of rules which can account for such changes. This problem introduces the contrasting view of the descriptivist, a view which is impartial and objective about a language’s rules.

Descriptivism, on the surface, seems to be an easier stance to agree with; language should not necessarily have rules, and description is of higher priority. This is also the stance that most modern linguists tend to adopt, as it gives the opportunity to analyse language use and collect results based on the findings gathered. There is no desire to regulate language use. Furthermore, descriptivism is a useful stance because it could be argued that before we can attribute rules to a language, we should first investigate and describe its aspects.

However, descriptivism too has its faults. For instance, Meyer (2010: 14) states that “whether linguists like it or not, all language is subjected to linguistic norms”. There is no avoiding the fact that language rules are enforced, and in most cases, people tend to make negative judgements of a person’s non-standard language use. One further problem which is worth addressing is that it is difficult to believe that a fully accurate description of language is possible, as all interpretation is biased. No matter how objective descriptivism claims to be, individuals still have their own subjective opinions about what constitutes good and bad language.

To conclude, although both prescriptivism and descriptivism have their assets, neither one idea alone appears to be without problems. Prescriptivism does not take into account the fact that language is a naturally changing phenomenon, and there is too much variation and change for it to be able to stagnate. On the other hand, descriptivism must acknowledge different language uses they have to be at least aware that these usages are different. This implies that there must first be some form of judgement about various uses of language. Finally, Mesthrie (2009: 19) offers some form of compromise claiming “variation in language is to be expected in informal speech, but that more formal contexts of use (like a formal lecture) require a shift to other, more educationally sanctioned styles that minimise variation”.

ALEXANDRA GRAHAM, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Curaz, A. (2014) Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Endley, M. J. (2010) Linguistic Perspectives on English Grammar. Arizona: Information Age Publishing.

Lynch, J. (2009) The Lexicographer’s Dilemma. New York: Walker and Company.

Mesthrie, R. (2009) Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Meyer, C. F. (2010) Introducing English Linguistics International Student Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trask, R. L. (1999) Language: The Basics. London: Routledge.

‘The erosion of language or natural language change?’ ANTHONY REA preaches greater tolerance towards language prescriptivists.

Mirroring the sense of properness he portrayed in his role as a high-class, standards-enforcing concierge in The Grand Budapest Hotel (IMBD, 2014) actor Ralph Fiennes recently  complained that “[language] is being eroded”, blaming “a world of truncated sentences, soundbites and Twitter” (Jones, 2011). Fiennes continued that “our expressiveness and our ease with some words is being diluted so that the sentence with more than one clause is a problem for us, and the word of more than two syllables is a problem for us” (Jones, 2011). Fiennes’ views form part of a tradition of blaming technological innovations for the supposed decline of language, with  journalist John Humphrys previously condemning texters for  “pillaging our punctuation; savaging our sentences [and…] raping our vocabulary”  (Humphrys, 2007). Both Humphrys and Fiennes’ comments represent a prescriptivist attitude towards language, whereby linguistic forms are judged as either good/bad or correct/incorrect. Although a prescriptivist view is commonly adopted by the general public, most linguists prefer to take a descriptivist stance – observing how people use language without judgement.

Suggestions that language is being eroded or vandalised exemplify Aitchison’s (1997: 12) ‘crumbling castle view’, whereby prescriptivists treat the “English Language as a beautiful old building[…] which needs to be preserved intact”. Aitchison (1997: 13) refutes prescriptivists’ beliefs that language is regressing from its once perfect state, arguing language changes to maintain relevance to changing social circumstances. Therefore, whilst sentences in Twitter and SMS messages may contain fewer clauses, rather than rejecting these sentences as ‘truncated’, ‘savaged’ or incorrect, descriptivists choose to refrain from judgment, observe the reduction of clauses as a feature of language relative to the Twitter and SMS Mediums whilst possibly suggesting a reduction in the number of clauses is motivated by these mediums’ character limit restrictions.

Returning to Fiennes’ comments, many readers appeared to share his prescriptivist view, with one commenter describing Twitter as a “teeming cesspool of pseudo-linguistics [which…] breeds cringe-worthy habits of illiteracy” (Jones, 2011). The commenter’s sense of disgust invoked by the use of ‘cesspit’ is a good example of what Aitchison (1997:10) calls the ‘damp spoon syndrome’, whereby prescriptivists are disgusted by supposed language misuse as if witnessing a damp spoon being dipped in a sugar bowl. The metaphor’s underlying assumption is that laziness and sloppiness are the causes of language change (Aitchison 1997: 10). It could also be argued that use of the word ‘breeds’ relates to Aitchison’s (1997) ‘infectious disease metaphor’, whereby language misuse, or ‘habits of illiteracy’, breed much like the growth of infectious bacteria.

Aitchison attributes these prescriptivist strands of worry to a lack of understanding of how language changes (1997:18). However, whilst I agree with Aitchison’s point, I don’t believe possessing a detailed knowledge of  language change fully curtails  speaker’s urges to judge it. In his recent article, Jeremy Butterfield, states “as a professional linguist I try to embrace changes to modern language, but there are a few illiterate horrors I just can’t abide” (Butterfield, 2015). Whether complaining over  people’s  use of ‘criteria’ in place of ‘criterion’, or expressing his distaste for the “absurdly gushing and pseudo-empathetic American metaphor” ‘to reach out’, as a professional lexicographer and editor of Fowler’s dictionary (2015),  Butterfield’s judgements on the uses of others are unlikely to stem from ignorance of language change. Cameron (1995:2) suggests that our tendency to comment on and judge language is the realisation of natural language’s ‘reflexivity’ design feature – the ability to use language to comment on language.

Cameron (1995:2 ) highlights the importance of reflexivity through Wittgenstein’s language game (1965). In the game we imagine two workers, A and B, have to construct a house from blocks and slabs. They communicate through a language which consists only of the utterances, ‘Block!’ or ‘Slab!’.  Building starts through Worker A shouting ‘Slab!’ when a slab is required, to which Worker B responds by passing one over. However, if worker A mistakenly shouts ‘Block!’, when he actually requires a Slab, there would be no way for worker B to correct A. The game exemplifies how correcting the language of others can make communication more effective. I feel it also highlights the importance of prescribing a mutually-intelligible, standard variety for speakers to use where and when appropriate. With this is mind, I feel that in having cultivated a descriptivist attitude through formally studying language, I may have become too quick to disregard prescriptivists’ views on language change as misinformed, or even pompous. I now feel that reconsidering attempts to ‘correct’ language as displays of metalinguistic skill, will make me more tolerant towards, if still in disagreement with, prescriptivist views of language change.

ANTHONY REA, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Aitchison, J. (1997) The Language Web: The Power and Problem of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Butterfield, J. (2015) Achingly Unacceptable: the bad language that bugs me. The Guardian [online], April 3 [Accessed 9 April].

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

Fowler, H. W (ed.) (2015). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 4^th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Humphrys, J. (2007) I h8 txt msgs: How texting is wrecking our language. Daily Mail [online], September 24 [Accessed 9 April 2015].

IMDB, (2014). The Grand Budapest Hotel. [Online] [Accessed 9 April 2015] 

Jones, L. (2011) Ralph Fiennes blames Twitter for ‘eroding’ language. The Telegraph [online], October 27 [Accessed 9 April 2015].

Wittgenstein, L.(1965) Philosophical Investigations. New York: The Macmillan Company.