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.
2 When Follett presents usage, he introduces two groups. The first group includes conservatives, who believe that there is a correct way and a wrong way. The second group, the linguist says that there is no such thing as correctness of language usage. 3 While linguists say there is no such thing as correctness, their actions show that they do believe in correctness. Linguist write dictionaries that promote standard English. This shows hypocrisy of the linguist which is a prime example of their actions that show they do believe correctness. 4 As Follett continues
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.
Michiko Kakutani's essay “The Word Police” is a refreshing look at a literary world policed by the Politically Correct (P.C.). She pokes fun at the efforts of P.C. policepersons such as Rosalie Maggio, author of The Bias-Free Word Finder, a Dictionary of Nondiscriminatory Language . But in mocking authors like Maggio, Kakutani emphasizes that efforts of the P.C. police are often exaggerated to the point of silliness and can even become a linguistic distraction from the real issues. In fact, such filtering or censorship of words can lead to larger problems within the English language: “getting upset by phrases like ‘bullish on America' or ‘the City of Brotherly Love' tends to distract attention from the real problems of prejudice and injustice that exist in society at large” (686). According to Kakutani, over-exaggerated political correctness just serves in complicating our words and diluting the messages. But really, the problem in P.C. advice on word-choice is the exaggeration of inclusive ness. Kakutani addresses the P.C. police's righteous motive: “a vision of a more just, inclusive society in which racism, sexism, and prejudice of all sorts have been erased” (684). But where does one draw the line between writing inclusively and walking on eggshells? What is politically correct? Must writers assume the worst of their audiences when debating whether to mutate the spelling of “women” to “womyn” in order to avoid sexist language? The truth is, writing purely inclusively is an arduous task; it requires consistent and careful consideration of many exterior elements such as audience, literary content, and societal context. An examination of these elements reveals just how difficult ...
In his essay “The World of Doublespeak” Emeritus Professor William Lutz explained the concepts of doublespeak and the dangers involved in doublespeak. He outlined and explained in full details the four kinds of double doublespeak which includes: “Euphemism”, “Jargon”, “Gobbledygook” and “Inflated language”. Lutz explained that “Euphemism” are words that are used to avoid harsh and unpleasant reality. They are also used to make negative situations look positive and he gave an example of situations like death where we use positive terms to condole the family of the deceased. The next kind of doublespeak that he talked about was “Jargon” which is mostly used by professionals and is complex in nature because of the way professionals use it. He gave different examples one of which include: “Involuntary Conversion” of property.
Barker, C and Galasiński, D. (2001). Culture and Language. In: Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis. A Dialogue on Language and Identity, London: SAGE Publications Inc. p3-4.
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.
For example, in aboriginal culture their language can be quite complicated as their rules for some of their thinking’s go off of the relationships between one another. It can be seen when a successful hunt has occurred and different parts of the animal go to different people due to their language having specific rules as to what family member gets each part of the animal. Their language is based off of rules that standard English does not abide by, but that does not mean their language is wrong, it’s just different. This is an important issue to highlight as students in the classroom may be using a language that has different rules to the standard one being taught, so when teachers correct students they must show the student the value of their cultural language as well as help them understand why the standard language needs to be used. Language variation is not always about culture but can also occur through different contexts. Different relationships between people can affect what kind of language is used in a conversation. During today’s society it varies even more due to multi-media platforms and the range of different contexts on them. Just because the context of a language is online it doesn’t mean the literacy doesn’t vary. For example, a professional discussion group on Facebook would not have the same use of language if a discussion was
David Foster Wallace has coined the term SNOOT, which correlates directly with what prescriptivism at its most strict is: “SNOOT (n) (highly colloq) is this reviewer’s nuclear family’s nickname a clef for a really extreme usage fanatic, the sort of person whose ideas of Sunday fun is to hunt for mistakes in the very prose of Safire’s column” (Wallace 2005, 69). Garner, on the other hand, makes a very simple definition for prescriptivism: “Prescribers seek to guide users of a language…on how to handle words as effectively as possible” (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 266). Descriptivists are not the ‘opposite’ of prescriptivists, but they are at loggerheads with the ideals of prescriptivism since descriptivists simply seek to describe language as it is used. Garner, again, is succinct in his definition of descriptivists: “Describers seek to discover the facts of how native speakers actually use their language” (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008...
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.
I’m not trying to say that I’m a perfect speaker. However, there are some words any logical mind just can’t misuse, but are so misused by the public that I must rant about them!
Harvey A. Daniels writes about common concepts surrounding human language in his “Nine Ideas about Language.” According to Daniels, language critics believe language is changing. The changes that are being noticed are the increase in use of jargon and the lack of people speaking a standard dialect. Consequently, some linguists are describing these changes in language as a “crisis.” To refute this claim, Daniels looks to explain how language has basic features, structures, and operations. He then continues with nine ideas that show ideas of what linguists believe identify errors and misinterpretations of language.
There may be words in the same language which do not necessarily mean the same thing; there is more than one definition for them (Galanti, 2008, p. 28). Another instance of miscommunication occurs when there is a word that exits in more than one language and that has a different meaning in each language. One may be referring to one thing while the other interprets the usage of the word under their own understanding of the definition (Galanti, 2008, p. 29).
Her approach is capable of identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms that contribute to those disorders in discourse which are embedded in a particular context, at a specific moment, and inevitably affect communication. Wodak’s work on the discourse of anti-Semitism in 1990 led to the development of an approach she termed the Discourse-Historical Method. The term historical occupies a unique place in this approach. It denotes an attempt to systematically integrate all available background information in the analysis and interpretation of the many layers of a written or spoken text. As a result, the study of Wodak and her colleagues’ showed that the context of the discourse had a significant impact on the structure, function, and context of the utterances. This method is based on the belief that language “manifests social processes and interaction” and generates those processes as well (Wodak & Ludwig, 1999, p. 12). This method analyses language from a three-fold perspective: first, the assumption that discourse involves power and ideologies. “No interaction exists where power relations do not prevail and where values and norms do not have a relevant role” (p. 12). Secondly, “discourse … is always historical, that is, it is connected synchronically and diachronically with other communicative events which are happening at the same time or which have happened before” (p. 12). The third feature
tool that facilitated and allowed people to attempt to convey more meaning through words, first oral and then written in some languages. Since language first came into being, it has been one of the most important tools employed by humans to communicate with each other. Imagine what life would be like if we did not have language as an instrument to interact with each other. Further, language is often considered to be an integral part of culture; and most humans are well aware of the importance of language in society; however, can language be consumed to deliver the transparency of thoughts and implication of intentions? At times, it feels like we are the ones who are ruining the way of speaking, communicating, and thinking. An adequate example of that would be taking into consideration doublespeak, a term which was first encountered in the early eighties, more precisely in George Orwell’s book “Nineteen Eighty-four.” In our context, doublespeak means duplicity of speech, where it “can be defined as language which is purposely ambiguous, deceptive, or evasive” (Glissmeyer, 1). Orwell explains that language, “like any other tool, it can be abused, used not to build but to destroy, not to communicate but to confuse, not to clarify but to obscure, not to lead but mislead. Moreover, language is a unique tool used not simply to communicate but to apprehend and even give shape to reality” (qtd. in Lutz 15). In other words, doublespeak involves a deviation in meaning and is often employed to convey respect, to conceal elements of negativity, and to hide the “truth.”
Prescriptivist’s want to English to be used like it was many decades ago, but people’s lives change through the years and so does their language. In the 1950s words like ‘cell phone’, ‘internet’ and ‘hashtag’ weren’t used but that’s because culture and technology has progressed. I think that the descriptivist view of language is also the most inclusive. They recognize the languages of other races and ethnicities that blend with English, whereas prescriptivists more or less only use English by the ‘white American’
An interesting question arises from the study of artificial languages. Why do so many people dedicate so much work “to attempt to tame the language by making it more orderly, more rational, less burdened with inconsistencies and irregularities”? (Okrent, 2009). There are hundreds of artificial languages, and some may deem them failures. Nonetheless, there is some logic for the desire to create a new and improved language. For thousands of years we have had to deal with words that mean more than one thing, with idioms, with exceptions to every grammatical rule, misunderstandings, irregular verbs, etc. And while most of us don’t mind, there are other that thrive to make a world a better place through language (Okrent, 2009).