Analysis Of Wallace's Authority And American Usage

Wallace’s Authority and American Usage takes an unique approach to the English language. By unique, I mean that Wallace is having a conversation with his readers while critiquing Bryan A. Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern American Usage and justifying prescriptivism over descriptivism. Wallace does an excellent job using Bryan A. Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern American Usage as an example in examining the pros and cons of prescriptivism and descriptivism. The key argument in Wallace’s essay is the practicality of prescriptivism over descriptivism. Wallace doesn’t begin his essay with a thesis, rather, he begins it by taking the reader through a series of technical linguistics and public education to political ideology controversies. Wallace

questions the US lexicography. He relates to the reader by asking the question,
“Rarely, however, do we ask ourselves who exactly decides what gets in The Dictionary or what words or spellings or pronunciations get deemed substandard or incorrect. Whence the authority of dictionary-makers to decides what’s OK and what isn’t” (393)

By questioning the authenticity of all the other dictionaries, Wallace commends Bryan A.

Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern American Usage for its “Democratic Spirit.” Garner was able to compose a work that is both authoritative and clear in determinations of correct and incorrect English usage while undercutting his tone as a SNOOT. The problem Wallace has with English is that there are two kinds of English. They are separated into prescriptivism and descriptivism. Prescriptivism is the belief that there should be an authoritative set of guidelines as to what is correct and incorrect in the English language. Prescriptivists are viewed as elitist, classist, and even racist. Descriptivism on the other is different in that people reject the idea of an authoritative set of guidelines as to what is correct and incorrect in the English language. Descriptivists believe that as long as everyone understands each other, it’s less important to worry about the grammatical aspect of the English sentence. Now, going back to Wallace’s review on A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, a descriptivist would say that the purpose of the lexicographer is to observe and record language from a scientific perspective and objectively. Descriptivists believe in adapting to the group of listeners and being accepted. The idea of adapting and being accepted is true for most of us today, as well and it would seem to make most sense. False. Wallace’s key argument in his essay is that prescriptivism is

most practical compared to descriptivism. People are judged by how they speak and present themselves today. Writers appeal more to readers when they are prescriptivists:
“Grammar usage conventions are, as it happens, a lot more like ethical principles than like scientific theories.” (402)

Wallace brings up an example of the impracticality of descriptivism English,
“Imagine that two hard – core young urban black guys are standing there talking and I, who am resoundingly and in all ways white, come up and greet them with “Yo” and address one or both as “Brother” and ask “s’up, s’goin’ on,” pronouncing on with that NYCish ōō-ô diphthong that Young Urban Black English deploys for a standard o.

Either these guys are going to think that I am mocking them an be offended or they are going to think I am simply out of my mind. (411)

It is true prescriptivism may seem to have bad connotation with being elitist, classist, and even racist, but it is the reality. It is also important to be fair and to not take the readers or listeners for being undereducated than you are. Wallace praises Bryan A. Garner’s ethical appeal to his readers because not only does it convince us of his intellectual acuity but also of his fairness to his

readers.