Monthly Archives: April 2007

Prescriptive grammar lesson

On Language Log a comic was posted recently which depicts a grammar lesson. It struck me particularly since the grammatical shibboleths discussed in the comic can all be found in the grammatical tradition of the Late Modern English period. We see double negation, irregular use of perfect and simple past forms in the strong verb paradigm (see Oldireva-Gustafson 2002, Lass 1994 and Cheshire 1994 (these last two can be found in Stein & Tieken 1994)) and also irregular pronomonal usage (see, for example, Tieken 1994, also in Stein & Tieken 1994). 

It is also interesting to see the teacher utter sentiments about the link between social and linguistic insecurity which is likely to have been a major drive for the popularity of the normative grammars in the Late Modern English period.

 

For Better or Worse, 22 april 2007

On Language Log, Heidi Harley’s commentary on this comic illustrates how prescriptivist attitudes can arouse strong feelings about what ‘Grammar’ is, and about how to deal with the grammatical tradition which grew from the time of the Codifiers.

She calls the comic "a prescriptivist nightmare, framed in the normative language of correctness and error, perpetuating the notion that there is such a thing as ‘good grammar’ that is ‘difficult to learn’". What discourages her most is "the idea that, for 99.99% of the educated American public, this is what ‘grammar’ is: a laundry list of half-remembered strictures against certain forms and usages, understood as commandments from on high about How To Do Right, not even dignified with a discussion of what the proscribed forms and usages actually are, grammatically speaking". She argues that "[t]his stuff is not ‘English Grammar’. At best, it’s lessons in (Standard American) English Deportment and Etiquette. It is really, really demoralizing that almost nobody out there knows the difference."

It is interesting for us, who study the prescriptivist and normative tradition, to see how the definition of what ‘grammar’ is apparently still varies between different groups of people: there are the "99,99% of the educated American public" who apparently (and according to Harley wrongly?) see ‘grammar’ in the sense it had in the normative tradition as prescription of ‘correct usage’, versus the modern linguist’s idea of descriptive grammar.

N.B. I am not in any way claiming that either view of grammar is right or better, or even that the views of grammar are as irreconcilable as is popularly assumed. My point is that it is interesting to see differing concepts of grammar pop-up over the internet also with reference to popular culture.

Johnson correspondent Miss Hill Boothby

Paul Ruxin asks if someone has any letters or other examples of the handwriting of Miss Hill Boothby, the 18th century corespondent of Dr. Samuel Johnson. He has recently acquired a first edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, inscribed, "miss Hill Boothby from the author, and wishes to determine whether it is in her handwriting.

Guest Lecture Sylvia Adamson

On 27 April Professor Sylvia Adamson will present her paper "Daughters of earth and sons of heaven: words, things and persons in Johnson’s dictionary". Lipsius building room 147, 12:00-13:00. See poster: Download file

Henry Sweet Society Colloquium

Nicola Mclelland, Honorary Treasurer of the Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas, has asked us to announce the next colloquium of the Henry Sweet Society, which will take place from 18-22 July, 2007, at the University of Helsinki. For more information as well as the programme of the colloquium, download this document.
Download file