David Wallace’s purpose for writing his essay, “Authority and American Usage”, was to give a book review on Bryan Garner’s, “A Dictionary of Modern American Usage”. Wallace does this tremendously; in doing so, he provides references to other dictionaries showing the good and bad aspects of them. He then goes on to explain how Garner’s dictionary does a very good job at staying neutral in the so-called “Usage Wars”. Wallace explains how there are two main viewpoints that derive from today’s standard written English (SWE): descriptivism and prescriptivism (which Wallace often refers to as being a SNOOT). With the viewpoint of descriptivism comes the ideology that SWE should not have a strict set of rules or guidelines. On the other hand, as Wallace says, prescriptivists believe that a definite set of rules is what brings meaning to SWE. The term, “Usage Wars”, is what Wallace uses to depict the clashing ideology of descriptivists and SNOOT’s. …show more content…
I agree with Wallace’s viewpoint in being a SNOOT, mainly because I prefer things to be concrete rather than a changing language.
Wallace acknowledges that, because English was made up by man there is no one person who decides what is proper and improper. He outweighs this by saying, yes, there is no proper way but, “it seems more ‘considerate’ when you follow the rules of correct English… just as it is ‘considerate’ to de-slob your home before entertaining guests” (p. 404). Wallace makes a very good point and uses a comparison that is easy for the reader to follow. Another good point that Wallace brings up is that the way we speak sends a message about us as a person, and people get judged by the way we
speak. Wallace makes a very good point in saying that we use rhetoric all the time when we speak. In order to clarify, I must go a step back; Wallace explains how there are various forms of slang that originated from SWE, whether it be jargon or even just inside jokes that you have with your family and friends. The way that rhetoric falls into play here is that “a dialect of English is learned and used either because it’s your native vernacular or because it’s the dialect of a Group by which you wish to be accepted” (p. 411). Meaning that whenever you talk in slang you are actually trying to persuade the people you are with to like you so that you can fit in with the group. I believe that this is a very intellectual association that Wallace makes, though it may not be true in all cases. In concluding his essay, Wallace says, “ US English classes do far more to retard dialect talent then to cultivate it” (p. 413). I however, do not agree with this statement. I believe that English is one of the hardest languages to understand, this, along with it being a relatively new language, would make it quite difficult to teach effectively. I believe Wallace made this remark because of his preconceived notion, that he clearly stated in the text, in being a prescriptivist. In my opinion, if Wallace did not reveal such a strong prejudice, then the essay would have been a better read. Because of his heavy bias Wallace obviously has more weight on one side of the argument of the “Usage Wars”; which is ironic because this essay was a review for ADMAU, and in the review Wallace remarks Garner as having a neutral viewpoint (unlike himself).
1 Wilson Follett, in the article “On Usage, Purism, Pedantry” from Modern American Usage, promotes how two parties view the rights and wrongs concerning the usage of language.
In the essay “From Ancient Greece to Iraq, the Power of Words in Wartime” by Robin Tolmach Lakoff, Lakoff discusses the fact that words are a tool as well when it comes to wars. She talks about the differences between our natural want and ability to kill things, and the mental training soldiers receive to make it easier for them. Lakoff talks about the practice of dehumanizing the “enemy” through nicknames that make us feel superior then our foes, and the repercussions of using this type of language. In the essay by George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”, Orwell talks about the decay of the English language, especially in political writings. He discusses the fact that when it comes to writing, political being the main focus, it’s
In “Do You Speak American?” by Robert MacNeil, MacNeil uses outside sources, personal anecdotes, and familiar diction in attempts to prove that the transformation of American English is a positive outcome and should be accepted.
An example of the author’s use of formal diction is when he includes the word indolent in a sentence. By using intelligent words such as this one, the author appears to be highly educated making him an exceptional source of information. An audience is more likely to listen and agree with an author that sounds perspicacious and credible. The author continues to establish formal diction by including the words demure, languid, disillusioned, indolent, and bumptious. All of these words allow the audience to understand how educated the author is, persuading them to agree with the author’s claims about laziness and its benefits. In addition, this word choice strengthens the author's argument and emphasizes its importance. When the author demonstrates words such as these, he appeals to the audience by sounding informed on the topic making his claims stronger. This passage relied strongly on diction to support the author’s main claim about how it’s better to be lazy. As the essay goes on, Morley continues to use strong diction throughout the paragraphs. For example, in the fifth paragraph, the author includes the words, perplexities, quibble, dignified, repose, and keem. These words improve the quality of Morley’s essay and make it much more compelling to readers. The audience is more likely to agree with the author’s statement when he uses words
Birk and Birk explore the many processes that automatically and often unintentionally, take place during the gathering of knowledge and expression through words. In their book Birk and Birk break the usage of words into sections: Selection, Slanting by the use of emphasis, slanting by selection of facts, and slanting by the use of charged words. When words are used this way they reveal naturally occurring bias of the writer. Upon reviewing the selection from Birk and Birk’s book Understanding and Using Language it is clear that the essay written by Jake Jameson has examples of every principal Birk and Birk discuss. The Birk and Birk selection provides us with a set of tools that enable us to detect bias in the many forms that it takes. These tools reveal what Jamieson favors and make plain the bias present in his essay The English-Only movement: Can America Proscribe Language With a Clean Conscience?
David Foster Wallace, author of the essay “Authority and American Usage*,” praises and advocates for “good” writers who have a strong rhetorical ability, which he defines as “the persuasive use of language to influence the thoughts and actions of an audience” (Wallace 628). To have a strong rhetorical ability, an author needs to be aware of whom their audience is, in order to present their information in a way that will be influential on their audience. Wallace recognizes that an author who applies a strong rhetorical ability will be able to connect with the audience so that they respond “not just to [their] utterance but also to [them]” (Wallace 641). An author needs to take into consideration not just content, syntax and grammatical structure (their “utterance”) but also how their character will be perceived by their audience. A positive tone will make the author seem more pleasant and relatable, whereas a negative tone connotes arrogance and pretentiousness. That is why it is crucial for an author to recognize that an audience will respond to “them” and not just their “utterance,” as an author’s appearance to their readers can also shape how impactful their writing is.
The objective of norm in American, by Michael Schudson, explores how and why the objective norms developed in American journalism. Objective is one of the most important occupational values of American journalism, it can be identified by following measures: express allegiance, ethnographers’ observations and occupational routines, resist with the challenging behaviour, impersonality and non-partisanship in news content. Differencing from some scholars’ opinions that economic and technological change enhances the ethic of objective, Schudson thinks four conditions encourage the articulation of norms. Two of them are Durkheimian, the other two are Weberian. One of the Durkheimian conditions thinks the emergence of norm is to achieve horizontal solidarity, another Durkheimian condition find the norm is used to identify the group from other groups. Both Durkheimian conditions are concluded as social cohesion. The Weberian conditions find norm is not appear abruptly, they are transfer from the old generation, who were benefit from these rules, to the young generation. It is the tool for the superiors to control subordinates in a complex organization. Weberian condition is to satisfy the need of social control. By discussing the history of American journalism development, this essay outlining the emergence of these four conditions in the late 19th and early 20th century. By doing so, the author found the reason why a new moral norm appeared in American journalism. Compared with European journalism, this article discusses why objectivity as a norm first and most fully appears in American instead of Europe.
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
Simon emphases the significance of knowing, and using proper English, as well as keeping it alive. He proposes ways to sharpen the brain, which will result in a greater sense of discipline and memory. Simon also notes that everything we do is done with words, therefore, English is viewed as an essential to everyday life. The accurate use of rhetorical devices in this article are just one of many examples on how good English can help a person on a day to day basis. Despite Simon’s knowledge of proper English, the remainder of Americans must train themselves so that they may also achieve correct usage of the English
Gish Jen’s In the American Society is, on the surface, an entertaining look into the workings of a Chinese American family making their way in America. The reader is introduced to the life of a Chinese American restaurant owner and his family through the eyes of his American-born daughter. When we examine the work in depth, however, we discover that Jen is addressing how traditional Chinese values work in American culture. She touches on the difference in gender roles, generation gaps between immigrants and their American-born children, and the hesitance of these immigrants to conform to the American way of life.
George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language, first published in 1946, talks about some “bad habits”, which have driven the English language in the wrong direction, that is, away from communicating ideas. In his essay he quotes five passages, each from a different author, which embody the faults he is talking about. He lists dying metaphors, operators, pretentious diction, and meaningless words as things to look out for in your own writing and the writing of others (593-595). He talks about political uses of the English language. Our language has become ugly and the ugliness impedes upon communication. Ugly uses of language have been reinforced and passed down in the population “even among people who should and do know better,” (598). Ugly language has been gaining ground in our population by a positive feedback mechanism.
In Johnson’s preface to A Dictionary of the English Language, Johnson argues the importance of preserving language. Other dialects had a produced their own dictionaries, such as the French and Italians. Various writers of the eighteenth century were alarmed at the fact that there was no standard for the English language, since there was no standard it could easily become extinct. Johnson explored many points, such as how and why languages change as well as how many words are formed.
Culture is a part of everyone's life, whether we choose to express it in our everyday lives or to just be aware of its presence. A major part of one's culture is a defining language. The topic of assimilation versus multiculturalism directly relates to culture in America, and even more specifically to the power of language in American culture. Since language is the basis of communication I think that all immigrants must assimilate to a certain degree by speaking English, while preserving their heritage if they choose to do so.
Joseph M. Williams’ book, on the other hand, elaborates in detail of te guidelines and principles for writing the English language clearly and concisely. Each of his systematic principles for good wiring are padded with an abundance of example and explanation. Joseph Williams’ acknowledges this in his preface: “you should understand this is not an afternoon read. We offer detailed ways to put into specific practice the clichés of style ‘Be clear’ ‘Omit needless words’… We suggest you read this book a short section at a time, and then look at your won writing the writing of others” (Williams xiii).
I would like to start the trek through history with John F. Genung. Genung thought that good use had a standard which every writer should follow. The standard is only one word. The word is "PURITY." As Genung states "the writer must see to it he keeps the mother tongue unsullied." The use of one word to describe "good writing" is crazy. It takes more than just 'PURITY' to have good writing, sure it may help, but there has to be more to it than just that one thing. My reasoning for this is there would not be tons of textbooks if "good use" were that simple. I know in grade school or even high school, students are taught how to use the language correctly. If all it took to have "good writing" was purity in our writing, then how would we know if it was good usage or not. Genung expressed that the mother tongue must be kept unsullied, that can not happen with new words being added to the language. New word of thought of and used in our language all the time, and they are used in good writing. This is the point that I disagree with Genung. The word "unsullied" in his article is rarely used in society today, does he have bad usage because it is no longer pure to the mother tongue? I don't think so.