Stephanie Richardson

Elang 350, Professor Marvin Gardner

March 30, 2012

She Dropped her What?!

The Importance of Changing With the Language

“So there I was, tromping through the field to feed the horses. Despite my husband’s

warnings, I had worn nothing but my thongs. I thought it wouldn’t be a big deal because it’s only a

few-minute walk from my backyard to the horses, and I feed them every day. But on my way back

inside, I felt something odd under my foot. I looked down, and to my horror, realized I had just

stepped on a snake. I would have liked to catch on film how high I jumped out of my skin, for I’m

sure I must have beat any record. I started running as fast as I could, but darn those stupid things I

was wearing, I wasn’t very fast. I guess that snake wanted revenge; for I glanced over my shoulder,

and that cursed snake was chasing me! I could have easily outrun the snake on any normal day, but

a large puddle of mud seemed to appear out of nowhere. I started slipping and sliding, and in order

to get out, I had to drop my stupid thong! I didn’t stop to pick it up or look back until I was safe

inside the house. I don’t think my heart slowed down for a good twenty minutes! It was quite the

adventure!”

This story was related to me when I was about thirteen. I was then involved in a group

similar to girl scouts, called the Young Women’s Program for the church I attend. Our leader Chris,

who was perhaps in her late fifties, told a group of us girls this story. At the time, we were rolling

around laughing, but we weren’t laughing because of the way Chris was running from the snake, we

were laughing because our immature thirteen-year-old minds couldn’t get over the fact that she had

dropped her “thong,” not her “flip-flop” or “sandal.” Though it was clear as Chris related the story

that she was referring to her shoes, not her underwear, our leader had failed to recognize that the

language had changed. A simple word that meant “casual footwear” twenty or even ten years ago

had changed its meaning to represent something we couldn’t very well picture our leader wearing.

Though this is perhaps a silly example, it illustrates a very important point: Language is changing.

Though consistency in language is important, it is essential that we recognize language change in

order to appropriately speak to our audience, and maintain clarity. As editors, it is our job to learn

which rules need to be kept, and which rules, though once perhaps important, can now be dropped

from our language—along with Chris’s thong.

Any usage manual or guide proves that there are countless debates on which words should

be used when and where. It is a never-ending battle between the prescriptivist—one who dictates

how he or she thinks the language should be used—and the descriptivist—one who dictates how he

or she feels the language is used. Though I consider myself to generally be a descriptivist or a

liberal when it comes to language, the “right” answer to this never-ending battle is not a simple

black-and-white solution. There are times when both approaches to the language need to be taken

into account. One of the first things that writers or speakers of English need to understand is who

their audience is.

Had Chris told the story to a group of women her own age, her word choice likely would not

have been a problem. However, with young girls it would have been much more appropriate to use

“flip-flop” or “sandal” in place of “thong.” Similarly, with everything we write and edit, we need to

ask ourselves who our audience is. Amy Einsohn, in The Copyeditor’s Handbook suggests that we

ask ourselves some questions before we begin copyediting. They are questions like, “Who is the

primary audience? How much are readers expected to know about the subject? How will readers use

the publication?”1 In asking ourselves these questions before we begin editing, we can know how

prescriptive or descriptive we need to be. Knowing who the audience is will help us know how

formal we need to be, and which rules we need to keep.

1 Amy Einsohn, The Copyeditor’s Handbook: A Guide for Book Publishing and corporate Communications 3 ed.

(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 14.

For example, there is a rule in English that states that subjects and verbs must agree. Most

experts agree completely with this statement. However, as language changes and the masculine

pronoun he for the generic person is looked down upon, in speech and some writing, many authors

have started using the plural pronoun they when referring to a singular noun when the gender is not

known. In speech and informal writing, the “everyone/they” issue generally will not cause a person

to blink twice. However, in formal writing, using this construction may mark a writer as

“uneducated.” With this is mind, many editors recast these sentences to avoid the issue.

While working on a student journal, I was discussing with a professor this “everyone/they”

issue. She told me that “while we know we can use the ‘everyone . . . they’ construction, we avoid

it, because we want to maintain formality, credibility, and consistency with other academic

journals.” To maintain the credibility of the journal, she recognized that while language is changing,

it is important to understand our audience and base our editing decisions on what readers expect.

This does not mean that prescriptivism should always be undeviatingly followed, but it means that it

should be followed according to the audience.

Just like the “everyone/they” debate, a debate over using “it is I” as opposed to “it’s me” is

prevalent among usage experts. When I was young, whenever I would answer the phone, my

mother taught me that if I was the one the caller was asking for, and I had answered the phone, I

should always answer “this is she” not “this is her.” At the time, I didn’t realize what grammatical

principle my mother was trying to teach me. However, I have come to realize that using the correct

nonnative pronoun has gone out of style in certain tenses—even in formal writing. Almost all usage

experts agree that using the construction “it is I” makes a person sound “stuffy,” and to generally

avoid using the construction. Luckily, this issue doesn’t usually come up in formal writing, but how

do we know which rules to follow and which rules to break? Einsohn states that it is the job of

“copyeditors . . . to be able to distinguish between inviolable rules and personal stylistic

preferences.”2

This is one of my great difficulties in editing. As a speaker, I embrace language change. I do

not get caught up in rules, or get frustrated when someone uses “for who” instead of “for whom.” I

realize and appreciate the importance of recognizing that times change and the language with it.

However, when I put my editing hat on, I understand that a completely descriptive approach in

language may not be the wisest decision. While what’s “logical” in language may seem the smartest

choice, Joseph M. Williams pointed out, “Even if ain’t is logically correct, so great is the power of

social convention that we avoid it, at least if we hope to be taken seriously when we write for

serious purposes.”3 With the caveat that it depends upon who the audience is, while editing I am a

partial-prescriptivist because I have to be. Though in speech we don’t have to follow the rules, in

writing, it is important to understand that what we say and how we say it reflect our education,

knowledge, and credibility. With that in mind, there are still certain rules that I break, even in

formal writing. This is why I am a “partial-prescriptivist” and not a full one. Einsohn helps us

understand which rules can be broken:

Despite what may have been drilled into you . . . all of the following taboos are routinely

broken (even scoffed at) by well-respected writers and editors and by experts in

contemporary American usage:

Never begin a sentence with and, but, or, also, or however.

Never end a sentence with a preposition.

Never split an infinitive.

Never use which to refer to an entire preceding clause.4

There are various reasons why each of these rules is “routinely broken” and even “scoffed at,” but it

is essential to acknowledge that in our changing times, these outdated rules may be broken and even

2 Einsohn, 333.

3 Joseph M. Williams, revised by Gregory G. Colomb, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace, 10 ed. (Boston: Longman,

2010), 13. 4 Einsohn, 339.

forgotten. The Chicago Manual of Style sixteenth edition helps us understand the difference

between “standard English,” and “dialects,” and which to use. Chicago suggests that “the goal is to

stay within the mainstream of literate language as it stands today. . . . Good usage should make only

reasonable demands without setting outlandishly high standards.”5 In my editing, I tend to agree

with Chicago. It is important to know the rules and use them, but it is more important to know the

current conventions and apply them to writing and editing. Editing does take demands; however, it

is the goal of editors to maintain the language as it is today.

In conclusion, I feel that the most important aspect of writing or editing may not be what is

“correct,” but what maintains clarity. To communicate is one of the greatest purposes of language,

and a descriptive or prescriptive approach should be used with the idea that clarity and

communication are much more important than following rules. Einsohn agrees, “The final challenge

for copyeditors is to ensure that the text is clear and unambiguous at all levels.”6 However, It is

important to maintain “correctness” in order to uphold credibility and formality. To do this, we

must first understand our audience, and then decide the level of prescriptivism we need to uphold.

But, if we do not change with the language, we will end up like Chris, confusing a group of

thirteen-year-old girls who don’t know the difference between underwear and a shoe.

5 The Chicago Manual of Style, 16 ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 262-3.

6 Einsohn, 333.