The Rise of Prescriptivism in English

7/23/2019 The Rise of Prescriptivism in English

1/26

The Rise of Prescriptivism in English

DDrr.. SShhaaddyyaahh AA.. NN.. CCoollee

Dr. Shadyah A. N. Cole

- Assistant Professor- English Department-

Umm Al QuraUniversity

- Participated in manyInternational

Conferences viapublished research

UMM AL-QURAUNIVERSITY JOURNAL

Of Educational, Social

Sciences & Humanities


2/26


Um Al-Qura University Journal Of Educational and Social Sciences and Humanities 117



Abstract

The social milieu of eighteenth-century England gave rise to the middle classes.

As their numbers, wealth, and influence grew, they felt the need for an authority on

language to settle disputes of usage and variation. An English Language Academy

was proposed but came to naught. Instead, dictionaries, such as Samuel Johnson s,

and grammars, such as Robert Lowths, took the place of a language academy.

Together, dictionaries and grammars were felt to have accomplished the three goals

that were deemed necessary: to ascertain, refine, and fix the English language once

and for all.


3/26


118 Vol. 15- No.2 Jumad I 1424H. July 2003

.

.

. : .


4/26


Umm Al-Qura University Journal Of Educational and Social Sciences and Humanities 119

1.0 Introduction

Speakers and writers of English facea daunting task. Not only does English havea much more expansive vocabulary thanother languages, due to the various accidentsof history that shaped its modern form, butit also requires the extensive study ofgrammatical rules in order to master it.Other languages have relatively un-complicated grammar books by comparison.Many are, in fact, little more than a record ofthe language as it is spoken. If there arequirks and exceptions to their usual rules,they are relatively small in number. Mostgrammar books are thus descriptive innature.

English, on the other hand, has many

rules of grammar, many exceptions to theserules, and a plethora of prescriptivegrammar books to detail them all. A greatmany of these points of grammar do notreflect the English language as it is spokenby the majority of native speakers, butnevertheless every student at all levels muststudy them and educated people ignorethem at their peril.

Where do these rules and exceptionsto the rule come from? This paper traces thebeginnings of the phenomenon of prescrip-tive grammars in English. Part Twodescribes the milieu which led to the writingof prescriptive grammars. Part Three detailsthe attitudes toward language itself thatprevailed at this time. Part Four discussesthe call for an English Language Academyand why it failed. Part Five shows that anEnglish dictionary and an English grammarwere found to be adequate substitutes for anEnglish Academy. In Part Six prescriptivegrammars are discussed in detail, and Part

Seven shows what the results of thisprescriptivist movement are today.

2.0. THE TEMPER OF THE TIMES

There are many factors thatcontributed to bringing about the presentattitude of belief in and dependence ongrammars and dictionaries. While some of

them trace their roots back to antiquity, mostof them arose in the years between 1650 and1800. Prescriptivism did not develop in avacuum but was part of, and the result of,the whole intellectual way of thinkingduring this period.

2.1. Politics

England between the years 1650and1750 saw many changes. The executionof Charles I and the establishment of theProtectorate and Commonwealth, theRestoration of the monarchy with Charles II,and the deposition of James II, followed bythe Glorious Revolution which settledWilliam III and Mary, and later Anne, on thethrone, all contributed to the change from anabsolute monarchy to a constitutionalmonarchy. This itself was a result of, and anindication of, the growing power of themiddle class, the repercussions of whichwould be felt even in linguistics. Thepopulation itself nearly doubled in the yearsbetween 1700 and 1801 (Garside 1990: 476).

Both the growing political power ofthe middle class, as seen in the success of thePuritan revolution and the establishment ofthe Commonwealth, and the expansion of

the colonies, which brought in great wealth,contributed to the opportunities for socialmobility that had not been present before."Naturally the beneficiaries of these changeswho aspired to social betterment were forcedto look outside their own traditions forguidance in modes of behaviour whichcharacterized the gentleman" (Gordon 1972:253). This betterment included language.

In spite of the tendency for monarchsto fall from grace during this period, therewas still a strong nationalistic feeling in thepeople. Strong centralized nationalgovernments all over Europe fostered thedevelopment and use of their ownvernaculars. There were many books,pamphlets, and essays written during thistime defending English against those whocompared it unfavorably with Latin or withother modern vernacular languages. It was


5/26



considered patriotic to defend one's ownlanguage and to recognize its fitness for useas a literary medium. The ruggedindividualist and the spirit of adventurewere giving way to an increased valuation oforder and systematicity, which "involved

conformity to a standard that the consensusrecognizes as good. It sets up correctness asan ideal and attempts to formulate rules orprinciples by which correctness may bedefined and achieved" (Baugh and Cable1979: 253).

2.2. Religion

Closely intertwined with the politicalstatus of England was its religious status.The repudiation of the Catholic Church byHenry VIII had aided in opening the doors

to the Reformation, which contributed tomaking education available to every person.The popular spread of knowledge wasespecially influenced by the Reformation,whose proponents held the position thatpeople themselves should have access to theBible without needing a priest to read andinterpret it. This idea had been debated forcenturies, but the Protestant attitude pre-vailed and led directly to the translation ofthe Bible into the vernacular languages. Thisin turn reinforced secular and humanist

needs as the status of the vernacularlanguages rose. Tindale's and Coverdale'stranslations of the Bible are examples. Theyand others, along with the populist style ofpreaching in the vernacular, fostered theincreased appreciation of the commonlanguage.

2.3. Printing

Closely allied to the translating of theBible into the vernacular, was the impetusfor owning one's own copy of the Bible. The

invention of the movable-type printing presshelped make this possible, as it also helpedto diffuse knowledge much more rapidly inall levels of society. The circulation of booksgrew rapidly; libraries were becoming moreand more common and were making booksmore widely available. It was during theearly part of the seventeenth century that SirThomas Bodley was given a grant from the

Stationers' Company so that the BodleianLibrary at Oxford was able to receive a copyof every book published in England. Allkinds of printed material became more andmore common--newspapers, journals, pam-phlets, books--until by 1711 the total

circulation of British daily or weeklynewspapers was 44,000 (Durant 1963: 484).Literacy rose sharply as middle-classfamilies strove to see that their children wereable to read competently in English.

2.4. Education

The separation of the Church ofEngland from the Church of Rome changedthe characteristics of the English universities,which before this split had been theprofessional schools of the clergy. Learning

now expanded into the sciences and intowhat has been called the humanities. Afterthe advent of printing, the demand foreducation grew rapidly and the ease ofexchange of knowledge became possible."The rise of a commercial middle classspread literate education through widercircles of society and encouraged the studyof modern foreign languages" (Robins 1979:99). Thomas Sheridan in his essay onEnglish education demonstrates the need forEnglish to be taught, as well as Latin and

Greek, in the education of "gentlemen"(Gordon 1972: 259). Views such as his werenot uncommon at this time and eventuallyEnglish was taught either alongside Latinand Greek or in place of them. The schoolteachers themselves, of course, had beeneducated only in the classics and were all toooften reluctant to teach English. Before thistime, the upper classes were mainlyinterested in having their children be fluentin Latin and Greek, as well as having acorrect French accent; now the tide was

turning. English was being valued for itselfand education was aimed at producingspeakers of "correct" English.

In addition, speaking and writingproperly were also a way of differentiatingthe growing middle class into a more genteelmerchant class and a less genteel tradingclass (Fitzmaurice 2000: 197). The middle


6/26



classes saw that the teaching of the Englishlanguage was definitely necessary for theiracceptance into genteel society (Crowley1996: 84). Politeness and good taste werealso seen as reasons for needing prescriptiveauthorities that could be consulted for

advice on such social concepts (Raven 1992:140).

2.5. Philosophy

The spirit of rationalism, which wasfully manifested in the Age of Reason,showed itself in the tendency to attempt tosettle disputes through appeal to logic."Everything should, could, and would beimproved by the application of reason. Itwas a time of an optimism that wassupported by recent discoveries in

astronomy, physics, and mathematics, thecontributions of men like Galileo,Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton. Throughreason the world, its institutions, and itspeople would be brought to perfection bydiscerning error and imperfection and thencorrecting all such" (Bambas 1980: 164). Theeasy acceptance of grammatical tradition inlanguage usage was accordingly replaced byregulations based on logic and reason(Gough 1754: 252).

2.6. Linguistics

By the end of the Renaissance, theEnglish language and problems connectedwith it were in the forefront of people'sconsciousness. The variations that hadarisen through the years were no longerbeing looked on with as great a tolerance asbefore. "On one occasion, for example, Morefound fault with Tindale because hedisregarded the customary distinction in theuse of yea and yes. But such knowledge wasassumed to be the inheritance of gentlemen

and was fixed only by custom among them"(Gordon 1972: 252). The domination of Latinand Greek in the schools had had such along history that it was a given thatgentlemen were not educated without atleast a superficial knowledge of the classics.Before this era, Latin and Greek werenecessary tools for acquiring an education.Now, they became a showpiece for an

educated gentleman. When the teaching ofEnglish became more common, it was notsurprising that the conventions andexamples of Latin were carried over intoEnglish in order to make it more appealing.That Latin grammar was an appropriate

pattern upon which to model an Englishgrammar was one of the basic assumptionsof the day.

Early works on English had beenprimarily for the purpose of instructingforeigners or for providing a basis for thestudy of Latin. Now that textbooks werebeing written specifically for the instructionof English as a vernacular language, theywere still influenced by Latin. The writers ofsuch textbooks were for the most partunconscious of the fact that they were tryingto force English into a linguistic mold that nolonger had the pressures of a living languageon it.

However, the attraction of an appealto classical authority was irresistible forthose writing at this time. They desired tohave the same resources of logic, clarity, andforce in English as they were conscious ofusing in Latin. "British writers justly fearedthat, as the fluid and multidialectal Englishreplaced Latin, chaos and instability could

destroy the relative ease of clear and exactcommunication afforded by the stableclassical language in universal scholarly usethroughout Europe" (Finegan 1980: 19). Thesame impulse that resulted in an appeal toclassical authority also manifested itself in abelief in the authority of individuals toregulate linguistic matters in English andalso explains the repeated appeals for theestablishment of an English Academy. JohnDryden was one of the early proponents ofthe call for an authoritarian regularization of

English that would eventually lead to thecommon acceptance of a prescriptivistoutlook on language and the formation ofexplicit rules of "correctness."

Even though the writers of the daygenerally adopted a rationalist philosophywith reason held in high regard, probablythe most adequate explanation of the


7/26



popularity of the authoritarian movementwas the popular demand of the middleclasses for guidance. As the middle classincreased in numbers and in wealth, theydesired also to have the manners andeducation of those above them in social

status, or at least the appearance of them.Preying upon their social insecurity, printerswere ever ready to supply this need in theform of grammar books, etiquette books, andother handbooks.

Another basic assumption of themiddle class was that variation wasundesirable. Differences in social status thatat one time were apparent by the trappingsof wealth and status, such as houses,carriages, and certain types of clothes, wereno longer necessarily the prerogatives of theupper class alone. When appearances failedto signal the distinction between classes,manner of speaking including pronunciationand grammar were found to be useful inmaking the distinction. The middle classwas quick to realize this and to wish toacquire the surface results of a classicaleducation. This desire for a veneer ofeducated speech, coupled with a lack ofconfidence in their own variety of language,set the stage for the development of

authoritative or prescriptive grammars.2.7. Enrichments in English

The freedom and individuality thatflourished in English writing during theRenaissance diminished as the influence ofLatin gradually became more and morepervasive. At last the criteria for style andelegance in English reflected those ofClassical Latin. English was strictly com-pared to Latin and where differences werefound, English was judged faulty. The result

was a borrowing into English of elements ofstyle and rhetoric that were purely Latin.Writers in general felt more confident aboutLatin because there were definite rules thatcould be appealed to and relied on sinceEnglish was thought to have no grammar.Writers were often puzzled about how toexpress themselves elegantly and eloquentlyin their native tongue since they had learned

the standards and modes of rhetoric only forLatin, and sometimes for Greek. JohnDryden, one of the most celebrated writersof the age, said that he was obliged at timeswhen he was writing in English, to stop andput an idea into Latin first in order to know

how best to express it in English (Bambas1980: 162). This remark suggests howgreatly many of the writers of the daylonged for an authority in the Englishlanguage.

In addition to stylistics and rhetoricbeing borrowed from Latin, vocabulary inEnglish was also greatly expanded by theinclusion of Latin words. Borrowing wordswas, of course, no new thing, but during onephase the enlargement of the English lexiconby borrowing words from Latin seems quitedeliberate with perhaps as many as tenthousand words being added to thevocabulary by 1650 (Bambas 1980: 134). Allof these ways in which English was regardedas an object worthy of pride and cultivationpoint toward a new attitude toward English,an attitude which evolved into the consciousenrichment of English. It is true that as useof Latin diminished as the ubiquitouslanguage of scholarly and gentlemanlyendeavor, English came to function in places

where Latin had flourished alone before,thus bringing with it an increasedvocabulary for these new functions (Finegan1980: 19). Some writers did seem to overdoit. The embellishment of writing withLatinate words, the display of wit andlearning, the affectation of style, all wereindications of those who took part in theenrichment movement.

Dictionaries of the times were hardlyadequate to the task, being as they weremostly dictionaries of English for foreigners.

The fact that these newly included wordswere termed inkhorn words by a numberof scholars and writers shows theiropposition to these pretentious words, butthese objections did not seem to stem thetide of the use of unintelligible terms. So itwas that the first English-only dictionarieswere dictionaries of "hard words, andwhich only gradually became more inclusive


8/26



and more informative about words that werein frequent and common use in English.

New terms also arose in English withthe increased travel and broader commercialventures of England. Exploration, widercommunication, and the increase of foreigntranslations all contributed to enriching theEnglish vocabulary (Wells 1973: 16). Byabout 1700, however, the spate of new wordsinto English had become a trickle, thoughnot completely stopped, giving us essentiallythe vocabulary that is current today.However, the trend continues somewhat informal or scientific writing, in whichpolysyllabic Latin and Greek words stillpredominate.

Along with the desire to enrich the

vocabulary of English went the desire toimprove its spelling. The spread of printingalso gave impetus to spelling reform. By1650 the number of variant spellingsgradually had been greatly reduced,probably under the influence of the printersin London which was the center of printing.Moreover, the changes in pronunciation thatwere effected during the middle Englishperiod, notably the Great Vowel Shift, hadresulted in a more or less standardizeddialect that is recognizably "modern". As a

result of the slowing of changes inpronunciation and other linguistic changes,the influence of the printing press, andspelling reformers, written English now hada form that varies only a little from what iscurrent today.

3.0. ATTITUDES TOWARD

LANGUAGE

The waning of the international andscholarly use of Latin, the concomitantincrease in the use of European vernacularlanguages instead, the discovery of newlanguages, and the use of the vernacularlanguages for religious purposes led to afeeling that it was within the people's powerto control the formation of the languagesthey were using. Before 1650 tolerance withvariation in language abounded, but afterthis time it was felt that English usage

needed to be regularized, standardized,codified, and unified. There was fear amongthe learned people that the expanded use ofnew linguistic embellishments in thelanguage could lead to "ineloquent,imprecise, and ambiguous communication

(Finegan 1980: 19). At the same time, thosewriters who were embellishing theirwritings with aureate terms" were in theirown way trying to improve the language.

The discussion of proper grammarand usage became a popular theme forcomment at this time. In 1664 the RoyalSociety went so far as to suggest and makeprovision for a committee to meet anddiscuss matters relating to English. For themost part, however, the Royal Society wasmore interested in mathematics and scienceand the project of improving the Englishlanguage was not attempted. In a similarvein, in 1698 Daniel Defoe published AnEssay on Projects, which was a collection ofprojects for improving the world. Amongthe schemes was a proposal for a linguisticacademy, consisting of writers of suchauthority that no one would resist the edictsthe academy handed down. Interestingly,one of the responsibilities of this body wasthe control of new words. Coining new

words without permission was to beequivalent to counterfeiting money (Bambas1980, 168).

Free-wheeling variation, even amongeducated people, was definitely contrary toan era that longed for order in the universe.What the spirit of the age called for was alanguage that was logical, permanent, andpolished. One of the basic assumptions ofthis age was that language could be madesubject to the laws of logic and reason.Attempts to modify the English of the time

fall into three categories. They wouldattempt to develop rules for English and toset up criteria by which all language usagecould be measured. They would attempt topurify it by removing any imperfections thatwere discovered and also by adding anyimprovements that were discoverednecessary. They would also attempt, oncethe first two changes had been effected, to


9/26


10/26



tunges to attire her self withall, but usethplainlie her own,...and if she want at ani tiim(as being unperfight she must) yet let herborow with suche bashfulness, that it maiappear, that if either the mould of our owntung could serve us to fascion a woord of

our own, or if the old denisoned wordescould content and ease this neede, we woldnot boldly venture of unknowen wordes"(Hebel, Hudson, John-son, and Green 1952:146). As can be seen in this 1557 quotation,the desire to purify English, spurred by thelinguistic changes that had occurred duringthe Renaissance, was now seen as animperative. By 1671 the anonymous editorof Stephan Skinner's Etymologicon LinguaeAnglicanae was wishing that English had asfew "solecisms and barbarisms" as did

classical Latin (Wells 1973: 31).

By the eighteenth century, thedemand for regulation of English was verystrong, especially regarding foreign borrow-ings. This apparently was somewhat of abacklash against the "inkhorn terms" or"aureate terms" that had been purposefullyintroduced into English in the precedingcentury. There was a feeling at this time thatEnglish was in danger of being ruined by theintroduction of foreign, especially French,

words. French was the language of almostevery court in Europe; knowledge of Frenchand use of French by the upper classes inEngland was almost universal; travel inFrance was a necessary part of the educationof the young; cultural exchange between thetwo countries was reciprocal, with perhapsFrance doing more exporting thanimporting. In reality, the number of Frenchwords borrowed into English from 1650 to1800 was not as great as people thought(Baugh and Cable 1978: 287).

Swift realized that Latin had changedor "decayed", as he put it, and he saw thatFrench too was changing through theincreased use of affected words by someauthors. He was afraid that English wassimilarly being affected by the introductionof "barbarisms", which had been greatlymultiplied since the Civil War. "The Periodwherein the English Tongue received most

Improvement, I take to commence with thebeginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, and toconclude with the Great Rebellion in FortyTwo....During the Usurpation, such anInfusion of Enthusiastick Jargon prevailed inevery Writing, as was not shook off in many

Years after....To this succeeded thatLicentiousness which entered with theRestoration, and from infecting our Religionand Morals, fell to corrupt our Language"(Swift 1712: 17-18). Swift's barbarisms,however, appear to the modern reader as thesingular crotchets of a conservative, opinion-ated old man. During every age there arealways people who react adversely tovarious words and expressions, especially ifthey are new. But due to the regard withwhich Swift was held by his peers and by

people in general, his opinions were givengreat weight and the usage he condemnedwas likewise condemned by the public ingeneral.

One category of words that Swiftconsidered in need of refining was thecontractions that were formed by the habitsome people had of shortening words. Hefelt that English was already too full ofmonosyllables and that words should retaintheir full polysyllabic sonority. He objected

to such words as rep, mob, and penult, forexample. Related to this, was the shorteningof verbs. Again Swift cites monosyllables asthe "disgrace of our language" and asks theEarl of Oxford, to whom his book isaddressed, whether he does not find itdisgraceful to permit verbs like drudg'd,disturb'd, rebuk'd, and fledgd. The thirdcategory of "corruptions" that Swift objectedto were simply new words that he did notlike. They were primarily words that werein vogue with the fashionable people of the

time and included some words that wewould find hard to do without today: sham,banter, bully, bubble, cutting, shuffling, andpalming (Baugh and Cable, 1978: 258). Swiftis only one example of this phemomenon.Every self-appointed purifier of English hadan idiosyncratic list of objectionable wordsand expressions.


11/26



3.3. Fixing the Language

Based on the assumption thatlanguage can and should be stopped fromchanging, the third goal was to renderEnglish unchangeable and to prevent itschanging further. Fear of change, of course,is not uncommon. Baugh and Cable pointout that the generation most interested inachieving permanence in language was alsothe generation that remembered the "dis-orders and changes of the Revolution andRestoration". Permanence and stabilitywould indeed be valued by them (Baughand Cable 1978: 254). Aside frompermanence for permanence's sake, writersof the day feared change because of thepossibility that it would lead naturally tounintelligibility of what had come before.Those who were familiar with Shakespeareand Jonson and Chaucer realized the truth ofthis. What they apparently did notcomprehend was that change was inevitable.In spite of the fact that the historical recordclearly showed linguistic change in everylanguage that the intelligentsia of the daywere familiar with, they still believed thatEnglish could be prevented from changing.Their fear was that their own writings wouldbe lost to future generations. Many writers,

Swift included, warned that two hundredyears hence historians would have difficultyin understanding the writing of Swift's owntime. This sentiment was expressed by thepoet Waller in Of English Verse: Poets thatLasting Marble seek,/Must carve in Latin orin Greek;/We write in Sand (Wells 1973:36).

The three steps to improving Englishthen were first to ascertain what Englishshould be, purify it of all corruptions, andthen, perhaps most ambitious of all, to fix it

once and for all, and to protect it fromchanging ever more. The eighteenth centurywriters, of course, had no doubt about theircalling to this task. Like many otherhistorical periods, the people of this eraconsidered themselves superior and held thebelief that their judgments should stand forall posterity.

4.0. AN ENGLISH ACADEMY

Similar problems had been faced inother European countries, and if they did nottry to ascertain, refine, and fix theirlanguages, they at least founded academiesto control somewhat the growth and rate ofchange of the vernacular languages. So, forexample, while England was lacking adictionary and bemoaning the fact, Italy andFrance had solved the problem by em-powering an academy to produce one. Itwas only natural that England wouldcompare its status with the other Europeancountries. The earliest language academywas the Accademia della Crusca in Italy,founded in 1582 with the avowed purpose ofpurifing the Italian language and producinga dictionary, which it did in 1612.

Even more effective perhaps was thesuccess of l'Academie francaise, founded byCardinal Richelieu in 1635. A royal charterwas offered to a small group of six men whohad already been holding discussions onliterature; their maximum number was set atforty. Their charter was very similar to theconcerns of the English. "To cleanse thelanguage of impurities, whether in themouths of the people or among men ofaffairs, whether introduced by ignorant

courtiers or preachers or writers.it shouldundertake to compile a dictionary, agrammar, a rhetoric, and a treatise on the artof poetry" (Baugh and Cable 1978: 261). Itcannot be doubted that England looked toFrance and Italy as examples andinspirations in undertaking what for themhad turned out to be of practical use.Comparisons with the French Academywere stated outright. In 1665 John Evelynproposed an English grammar that wouldaccomplish what the French Academy did.

But unlike the language academies ofEuropean languages, an English academywas never established.

4.1.Interest in an English AcademyThe idea of an academy for English can

be traced back as early as the last part of thesixteenth century to a suggestion by JohnBaret in the preface to the letter A in his An


12/26



Alvearie, or Triple Dictionarie, in Englishe,Latin, and French (1573). His proposal wasmainly concerned with the orthography ofEnglish and recommended that a group ofscholars look into reforming spelling (Wells1973: 32). There were various similar

appeals to authority in the early seventeenthcentury. Edmund Bolton proposed a societyauthorized to settle language matters to becomposed of politicians, lawyers, scientists,historians, literary men and other men ofletters. Samuel Daniel suggested that therebe an authority to rule on allowing newwords into English. Dryden regretted nothaving an academy, and in 1664 the RoyalSociety of which he was a member resolvedthat as "there were persons of the Societywhose genius was very proper and inclined

to improve the English tongue, Particularlyfor philosophic purposes, it was voted thatthere should be a committee for improvingthe English language" (Baugh and Cable1978: 263). However, it came to naught. Thecommittee held four meetings; interestwaned.

In 1697 Daniel Defoe wrote in hisEssay on Projects that the king ought toestablish an academy (Wells 1973: 33). In theearly eighteenth century Addison, at the

heart of a group of intellectuals and men ofletters (Fitzmaurice 2000), urged thatvariation of usage would never be settleduntil an academy or something like anacademy, consisting of the "best authorities",should be established, to settle thecontroversy between "grammar and idiom".Presumably Addison meant the controversybetween English as it ought to be used andas it was used (Bambas 1980: 168). But thegreatest proponent of an English Academywas Jonathan Swift.

4.2.Swift's ProposalThe assumption that language usage

could and should be governed by anarbitrary authoritarian body was given itsgreatest expression in the proposal of Swiftin 1712. No doubt inspired by the patronageand support of such a group in France byCardinal Richelieu, the most powerful

minister in France, Swift addressed hisproposal to the Earl of Oxford, the LordTreasurer of England, who held a similarposition in the English government.Although Swift does not call his governingbody an academy, the title of his proposal

clearly enumerates the duties that academieswere thought to render: A Proposal forCorrecting, Improving and Ascertaining theEnglish Tongue. Swift was, of course, in-fluenced by his classical education and feltthat the polysyllabic words of Latin andGreek were somehow more desirable thanthe monosyllabic words of English, of whichhe felt English already had enough. Swiftalso appeals to the Earl of Oxford forcorroboration of his dislike of dropping thevowel in the past tense endings of verbs.

"What does Your LORDSHIP think of theWords, Drudg'd, Disturbd, Rebukt, Fledgd,and a thousand others, every where to bemet in Prose as well as Verse? Where byleaving out a Vowel to save a Syllable, weform so jarring a Sound, and so difficult toutter, that I have often wondred how itcould ever obtain" (Swift 1712: 22).

The crux of the proposal is rathernebulous as Swift makes only a generalsuggestion as to what the authoritative body

would do and who would comprise it. Herecommends that it be made up of qualifiedpersons without regard to their rank orpolitics, a quite unheard of suggestion forthe time. He does not suggest a fixednumber of people but merely suggests thatthey should meet together at somedesignated time and place and proceed asthey see fit. He declines to put forward anymethods for them to use, only mentioningthat these persons would have the FrenchAcademy for an example of both what to do

and what not to do. He states for the benefitof those who would make up this committeethat "Beside the Grammar-part, wherein weare allowed to be very defective, they willobserve many gross Improprieties, whichhowever authorised by Practice, and grownfamiliar, ought to be discarded" (Swift 1712:30). Unfortunately Swift did not give anyexamples of what he meant by "the


13/26



Grammar-part" and constrained hiscriticisms primarily to the words of English.In fact, he gives three categories of wordsthat he feels need to be considered: wordsthat need to be completely discarded, wordsthat merely need correction, and a few

antiquated words that need to be revived(Swift 1712: 31).

Swift summarizes his proposal andhis fears in the following words: "But what Ihave most at Heart is, that some Methodshould be thought on for ascertaining andfixing our Language for ever, after suchAlternations are made in it as shall bethought requisite. For I am of Opinion, thatit is better a Language should not be whollyperfect, than that it should be perpetuallychanging; and we must give over at oneTime, or at length infallibly change for theworse: As the Romans did, when they beganto quit their Simplicity of Style for affectedRefinements; such as we meet in Tacitus andother Authors, which ended by degrees inmany Barbarities, even before the Goths hadinvaded Italy" (Swift 1712: 31-32).

The views of Swift and Addison andothers were linguistically reactionary; theywere loathe to accept new words orexpressions, and more likely to long for a

way to restore words that had once beenaccepted in English but that had been lost. Itis important to note that these views werenot eccentricities, but are those that weregenerally held by the educated classes of thetime. Even though no academy was formedafter the publication of Swift's proposal, theidea was popularly applauded. Swift'sproposal, however, became a politicalcontroversy amid the fierce politics of theday. Swift, a Tory, had addressed hisproposal to Robert Harley, who although he

held the position of Lord of the Treasury,performed the functions of Prime Minister.The Whigs attacked Swifts proposal as apolitical issue. On the point of establishingan academy, Harley and his government fellfrom power. Queen Anne died. The idea ofan academy and Swift's proposal were lost,and the idea of an academy died also.

4.3.Objections to an AcademySwift's proposal marks the culmination

of the movement for an English Academy.Contemporary opinion credits its failurewith politics in high places and the Queen'sdeath. In reality, opposition to the idea of anacademy had been slowly building; thepoliticking and the death of the Queenallowed the opposition just enough time tomuster their arguments and influence. Whatappeared to be a lone voice against anacademy, Oldmixon's (1712) Reflections onDr. Swift s Letter to the Earl of Oxford, aboutthe English Tongue, was apparently but thefirst indication of a groundswell of feelingagainst an academy. He makes a strongpoint for usage as the final arbiter. Hereflects that an academy would be the"Arbitrary Fancy of a Few, who wouldimpose their own Private Opinions andPractices upon the rest of their Countrymen"and he cites Horace in de arte Poetica that"Present Use is the final Judge of Language"(Oldmixon 1712: 18). Another objection thatOldmixon has is apparently against the old-fashioned rhetoric of writers like Swift. "Forwhat is grown Pedantick and unbecomingwhen 'tis spoke, will not have a jot the bettergrace for being writ down" (Oldmixon 1712:

18-19). He also objects on the grounds thatan academy might as well not be attemptedbecause its goals would be impossible tofulfill anyway. Referring to Swift, he says,"The Doctor may as well set up a Society tofind out the Grand Elixir, the PerpetualMotion, the Longitude, and other suchDiscoveries, as to fix our Language beyondtheir own Times.This wou'd be doingwhat was never done before, what neither

Roman nor Greek, which lasted the longest ofany in its Purity, could pretend to"

(Oldmixon 1712: 25). Oldmixon also hints atthe relationship between language and mindand the then-unknown processes thatconnect the two. "It will be vain to pretendto ascertain Language, unless they had theSecret of setting Rule for Thinking, andcould bring Thought to a Standard too"(Oldmixon 1712: 26-27).


14/26



Another objection Oldmixon broughtforward pertained to the individuality ofpeople and the impossibility of legislatingsuch people. He states that there will alwaysbe people who are individualists. Novelforms and idiosyncratic words will always

form part of their writing. He extends thisidea to include the people as a whole in oneera and so alludes to the relationshipbetween culture and language. "For everyAge, as well as every Nation, has itsdifferent manner of Thinking, of which theExpression and Words will always have aRelish, and be Barbarous or Polite, accordingas the Times take their Turn" (Oldmixon1712: 27). Many of Oldmixon's objections,rudely expressed as they were, had merit,although the full linguistic development of

them was yet to come.

Some apparently felt that if Swift hadhad no success in bringing about theformation of an academy, it would beuseless for anyone else to try. Furthermore,in the eighteenth century there wasemerging an attitude of disbelief in theefficacy of an academy and a resistance to itsformation. People were beginning toacknowledge that language might not beable to be fixed in an unchanging form by an

academy. The earlier enthusiasm for theexample of the French Academy seems tohave waned and in its place were doubts asto the value of the results of the work of theFrench Academy. It was seen that theFrench Academy has definitely not stoppedFrench from changing, and some evendoubted that the French Academy had doneFrench any good. In addition to pointingout the ineffectualness of the French andItalian academies, others pondered the factthat the English were noted for their

independence and would probably notaccept the dictates of an English Academyanyway. The limited scope of the influenceof an Academy was also noted. A languageacademy might affect the language of thefew educated men in the upper classes, butthe majority of English-speaking peoplewould never hear of the rules that the

academy would make and would thus neverabide by them.

By the latter part of the eighteenthcentury, opposition was pretty wellconsolidated against the formation of anacademy. Samuel Johnson, among others,was against it. Johnson was very muchinterested in retarding change, but he, beingone of those liberty-loving Englishmen,found the idea of an academy oppressive,and he further realized that Swifts premiseswere open to question (Wells 1973: 37).Johnson also appeals to the idea of usage asan arbiter of correctness in language. Herecognizes the illusiveness of dealing withlinguistic change. "Swift, in his petty treatiseon the English language, allows that newwords must sometimes be introduced, butproposes that none should be suffered tobecome obsolete. But what makes a wordobsolete, more than general agreement toforbear it? and how shall it be continued,when it conveys an offensive idea, orrecalled again into the mouths of mankind,when it has once by disuse becomeunfamiliar, and by unfamiliarityunpleasing?" (Johnson 1785, [3]).

5.0. SUBSTITUTES FOR AN ACADEMY

Although an academy of English wasnever instituted, the desire for the languageto be ascertained, refined, and fixed stillremained a popular sentiment, despite thedisclaimers of some like Oldmixon. Theoutcry for an academy gradually died down,mostly because other means were supplyingthe demand. Instead of academy-producedresources, private dictionaries andgrammars were beginning to be availableand to supply the needs of the Englishpeople. Those interested in ascertainment of

English came to realize that their goals couldnot be reached by edict from on high, butmust be accomplished by directly workingon the public. Sheridan states this belief inthe powers of general consent forstandardizing language in these words:"The result of the researches of rationalenquirers, must be rules founded uponrational principles; and a general agreement


15/26



amongst the most judicious, must occasionthose rules to be as generally known, andestablished, and give them the force of laws.Nor would these laws be met withopposition, or be obeyed with reluctance,inasmuch as they would not be established

by the hand of power, but by commonsuffrage, in which everyone has a right togive his vote; nor would they fail, in time, ofobtaining general authority, andpermanence, from the sanction of custom,founded on good sense" (Baugh and Cable1978: 269).

The recognized need in its simplestterms was for a dictionary, not merely ofhard words, but one which would includeall the words in English and a grammar thatwould detail their proper usage. Togetherthese two would form an authority forsettling disputes in usage. Peoplerecognized that without a dictionary and agrammar there would be no way ofascertaining what was correct in diction orwhat constructions were standard. In lieu ofan English Academy, the two mostimportant substitutions for it were SamuelJohnson's Dictionary of the English Language(1755) and Robert Lowth's Short Introductionto English Grammar(1762).

5.1.Johnson's DictionaryThe goals of a dictionary as Johnson

originally planned it sounded much likethose of an academy: to ascertain, refine,and fix the language. Johnson thought tomaintain the purity of English, at what stageof its development he did not make clear,and to ascertain primarily the meaning ofEnglish words (Johnson 1747: 4). He wasalso interested in making the pronunciationof English permanent and thus, he hoped, to

promote the longevity of the language. Atthe same time he realized that it might be asimpossible to change the language of anation as it is to change the morals of apeople through books, yet he hoped toaccomplish this at least in part so that "itmay contribute to the preservation ofantient, and the improvement of modernwriters" (Johnson 1747: 33). This was his

purpose at the outset as given in his bookThe Plan of a Dictionary. By the time thedictionary was published eight years later,his purpose had become somewhat moremodest. In the Preface to his Dictionary, itcan be seen that the number of goals Johnson

set himself have been reduced to two, bothessentially concerned with words only: tocollect the words of the language and tocorrect words that are correctable andproscribe those that are not. Johnsonrealized that not all words are correctable,since language is a reflection of its imperfecthuman origin. By registering theseanomalies, Johnson hoped that they couldbe curtailed and prevented from increasing.He felt that it was the duty of thelexicographer to assume the role of arbiter of

what was correct and what was incorrect inEnglish (Johnson 1755: [1]). Johnson wasquite ready to assume this role.

The public was hungry for anauthoritative source. Johnson gave it tothem, to such an extent that even todaywhen a lexicographer tries to abdicate thisposition of authority to become only arecorder of language, public outcry istremendous. People of Johnsons era lookedto the lexicographer as a kind of superior

being who had the right to rule on whatwords were acceptable and whatpronunciation words were to be given.Baugh and Cable state that "this attitude waswell-nigh universal in Johnson's day andwas not repugnant to the lexicographerhimself" (1978: 271). One way in which thisauthoritarian role of the lexicographerreveals itself in the dictionary is in the labelswhich Johnson provides for the propriety ofthe words. He uses such labels as proper,"improper", corrupt", cant", "barbarous",

and "vulgar, all clearly judgmentaldescriptions.

In describing the method by whichhe compiled the dictionary, Johnson drewupon dictionaries for foreigners, dictionariesof "hard words", noting that they werewoefully deficient. When these obvioussources had been exhausted, Johnsonproceeded to glean more words of English


16/26



from books of the best writers of the day,using, as he puts it, "fortuitous andunguided excursions into books (Johnson1755: [3]). What is important to note in thisprocess is the fact that Johnson firmlyestablished the principle of induction for

ascertaining the meaning of words byrecording the usage of words encountered inhis reading. In fact, in the Preface to theDictionary, he notes that the "sense mayeasily be collected entire from the examples"(Johnson 1755: [6]). An interesting report ofthe method Johnson used is as follows:"Johnson...had, for the purpose of carryingon this arduous worktaken a handsomehouse in Gough Square, and fitted up aroom in it with desks and otheraccommodations for amanuenses, who, to

the number of five or six, he kept constantlyunder his eye. An interleaved copy ofBailey's dictionary in folio he made therepository of the several articles, and thesehe collected by incessant reading of the bestauthors in our language, in the practicewhereof, his method was to score with ablack-lead pencil the word by him selected,and give them over to his assistants to insertin their places. The books he used for thispurpose were what he had in his owncollection, a copious but miserably ragged

one, and all such as he could borrow; whichlatter, if ever they came back to those thatlent them, were so defaced as to be scarceworth owning, and yet, some of his friendswere glad to receive and entertain them ascuriosities (Hawkins 1961:77). As acommon practice, Johnson tried to collectwords that were in general use or in theworks of "polite" writers. He did not includethe specific words of particular professions(Johnson 1747, 4).

Another way in which Johnsoncurtailed his goals since the publication ofPlan may be seen in the amount ofdiscussion given to structure of English inthe Preface of the Dictionary. Although thePreface includes fifteen pages of what wouldbe called grammar, only twelve lines aregiven to syntax. This was apparently quite adisappointment for those who had hoped a

more comprehensive treatment of thestructure of English would be included.Johnson found dealing with the words ofEnglish to be a sufficiently arduous task.Another way in which the finisheddictionary was less that what had been

planned relates to the matter ofpronunciation. Johnson had originallythought that a dictionary could helparbitrate between variation in pronunciation.He had intended to use the pronunciation ofthe best speakers whose pronunciationshowed the least variation from the writtenform of the word. However, when theDictionary was published without a guide topronunciation and the question of variationremained unresolved, Johnson pointed outthat "the best speaker of the House of Lords

(Chesterfield) and the best speaker of theHouse of Commons differed in thepronunciation of the word great. Johnsonfelt he could not arbitrate between equallyreputable speakers of the mother tongue"(Bambas 1980: 192). Other lexicographers inyears since have, however, taken this taskupon their shoulders.

Johnson's Dictionary was immenselysuccessful in the matter of spellingstandardization. He did not go so far as to

try to reform spelling, although peoplewould have been willing for him to use hisauthority to introduce a better system. Buthis dictionary did promote an attitude infavor of traditional spelling. He says asmuch. "The present usage of spelling, wherethe present usage can be distinguished, willtherefore in this work be generally followed,yet there will be often occasion to observe,that it is in itself inaccurate, and toleratedrather than chosen; particularly, when by achange of one letter, or more, the meaning of

a word is obscured, as infarrier, forferrier, asit was formerly written, from ferrum or fer"(Johnson 1747: 11).

Johnson also reconsidered his goal offixing the English language once and for all.It had been stated in the Plan that one of thepurposes for writing a dictionary was to fixthe language; however, when the Dictionarywas published, the Preface stated that it was


17/26



impossible for a lexicographer to "embalm"the language and keep it from "corruption"and "decay". Johnson states his opinion thatacademies which were founded with thisgoal have done their work in vain. "Soundsare too volatile and subtile for legal

restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lashthe wind, are equally the undertakings ofpride, unwilling to measure its desire by itsstrength" (Johnson 1755: [10]). He remarksthat he had flattered himself at first intothinking that he could indeed do this, butthat he came to realize that it was anexpectation "which neither reason norexperience can justify" (Johnson 1755: [10]).

In Johnson's dictionary, for the firsttime in English, the meanings of words weregiven along with examples of their usagefrom well-selected authorities. This hadbeen done before in dictionaries of otherlanguages, notably the dictionary of theAcademia della Crusca, which probablyJohnson knew, but this was the first timethat this method had been used in English.Another valuable innovation in Johnson'sdictionary was the enumeration of variousmeanings for each word. And it was the firsttime that a dictionary could by any means becalled a standard, rather than a mere list of

hit-and-miss words. It truly exhibited thevocabulary of the English language for thefirst time ever, it was replete with examplesfrom notable writers, it offered a spellingwhich, if not always correct, at least wasfixed and could be used as a reference.There were some defects. The chance for areformed spelling was missed, as wasmentioned above. The words themselvesweren't always clearly English words. Someexamples of words that Johnson put forwardas English words are these: denominable,

opiniatry, ariolation, assation, ataraxy, clan-cular, comminuible, conclusible, incom-possible, indigitate. The right of these wordsto be included in an English dictionary wasquestionable at best. Prejudice and capricemar some of the definitions. Others can onlybe called Johnsonian, for example:"Network: Any thing reticulated or de-cussated, at equal distance, with interstices

between the intersections". Its etymologiesare often inventive rather than accurate(Baugh and Cable 1978: 270).

It was, however, an extraordinaryaccomplishment, the more so when oneconsiders that other dictionaries of similarsize and content were being produced byacademies. It is only natural that Johnson'sdictionary was compared with the onesbeing produced by the Italian and Frenchacademies. His friend Garrick wrote anepigram, commenting on the fact thatJohnson had accomplished what took thewhole French Academy to do:

And Johnson, well arm'd like a heroof yore, /Has beat forty French, and willbeat forty more.

Boswell remarks that Johnson was"complacent" over a report that the Italianacademy found it hard to believe that healone had produced the dictionary (Bambas1980: 189). A notice in Europe notes thatJohnson could boast of being an academy allby himself. And it is true that he didconceive of his dictionary as performing atleast part of the work of an academy, sincewhich time the suggestion of an Englishacademy has never seriously been putforward again. It was indeed a greatachievement, especially when one considersthat it was the work of one man, laboringalmost alone for seven short years.

5.2.Rhetoricians and GrammariansWhat Dr. Johnson's dictionary did for the

lexicon was attempted for the syntax by thegrammarians and rhetoricians of theeighteenth century. The grammarianssucceeded in producing grammars as un-compromising as Johnson's dictionary withmuch the same goals of determining whatwas correct in grammatical usage and to fixit permanently. The rhetoricians, while notproducing grammars as such, producedrhetorics of English that discussed many ofthe same questions of usage. One of theserhetoricians, Thomas Sheridan becameinterested in language through his interest inelocution. His opinions express an


18/26



interesting view of the role of language: "Arevival of the art of speaking, and the studyof our language, might contribute in a largemeasure, ...to the cure of the evils ofimmorality, ignorance and false taste"(Baugh and Cable 1978: 27).

These handbooks were the work ofindividuals who believed that reforms werenecessary, that standards needed to be setup, and that they were the ones to do it.Most of these authors had no particulartraining or qualification for the task otherthan a belief that they had a right to declarewhat was right and wrong about the Englishlanguage. Others were members of theclergy who had knowledge of Latin, Greek,and Hebrew, which at least gave them theadvantage of having an idea of comparativegrammar. What usually happened howeverwhen these classically trained grammarianswrote their grammars was that English wasforced into a classical mold. Others had noqualifications to recommend themwhatsoever and were proud of it. One ofthese was Robert Baker who publishedReflections on the English Language in 1770.As part of his qualifications he states that heknows no Greek, very little Latin, and adds:"It will undoubtedly be thought strange,

when I declare that I have never yet seen thefolio edition of Mr. Johnson's dictionary:but, knowing nobody that has it, I havenever been able to borrow it; and I havemyself no books; at least, not many morethan what a church-going old woman maybe supposed to have of devotional onesupon her mantle-piece: for, having alwayshad a narrow income, it has not been in mypower to make a collection withoutstraightening myself" (Baugh and Cable1978: 275). By such as these was the English

language to be ascertained, refined, andfixed forever.

There were the occasional rarewriters who realized that Latin was not theproper model for English. One of theearliest of these was John Wallis who wroteGrammatica Linguae Anglicanae in 1653. But itwas not until the eighteenth century thatEnglish grammar was considered a subject

worthy of study in itself (Baugh and Cable1978: 272).

In 1724 an anonymous workappeared entitled The Many Advantages of aGood Language to Any Nation: with anExamination of the Present One. It repeatedmany of the same old complaints aboutEnglish that Dean Swift had presented:English had too many monosyllables, toomany contractions, no grammar or diction-ary. What was unique about this pamphletwas that it was the first appeal to try toarouse popular interest in correct grammarand proposed a series of weekly or monthlypamphlets to discuss points of grammar. In1729 Thomas Cooke "brought out his"Proposals for Perfecting the EnglishLanguage", which was also an appeal topopular opinion. His view of English wasradical and idealistic. He proposed that allstrong verbs should follow the weak verbconjugation, that all plurals should beformed by adding -s or -es, that thecomparative forms of adjectives should beformed only by using more and most, andother regularizing changes. In 1761 JosephPriestley's The Rudiments of English Grammarwas published. This grammar was notablein that it recognized usage of reputable

writers as the standard for linguisticpropriety. Priestley's grammar acceptsforms like it is me and lesser and the likebecause he saw them being used by goodwriters like Addison. Addison, rather thanSteele, although both were associated withthe influential Spectator, was one of the mostcited writers in regard to both good andpoor usage (Wright, 1994). Usage had beenrecognized as important before, but Priestleywas the only one of his generation whoinsisted on this principle.

In 1762 immediately after Priestley'svolume appeared, Robert Lowth publishedShort Introduction to English Grammar, whichwas to reign for many years amonggrammars, as Johnson's dictionary didamong dictionaries. His grammar was muchmore in accordance with the feelings of thetimes than Priestley's was and had acommensurate success, especially since his


19/26



writing was in a style that was simple andeasily understandable, which was notalways the case in the grammars that werebeing written at this time. His style and thefact that he was decidedly authoritarianabout variations in usage account for the

popularity of his grammar. Twenty-twoeditions of Lowth's grammar were publishedbefore the turn of the century. Lowth wasmuch more conservative in his view ofEnglish, preferring traditional solutions. Hisgrammar was typical of the normative,prescriptive grammars that were beingdemanded. Lowth's grammar had manyimitators who spread the influence of thisschool of prescriptive grammars, amongwhich perhaps the most successful wasLindley Murray's English Grammar.

Murray's grammar remained in use fordecades and itself provided the model forfuture writers of school grammars for evenmore decades to come (Bambas 1980: 171).

6.0. PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMARS

Grammar writing had been aprescriptive art since the Alexandriangrammarians who sought "a means ofanalyzing classical writers and guidingcontemporaries to approximate this model"(Hughes 1962: 41). The eighteenth century

grammarians developed this tradition to itsfullest. There is no doubt that they sawthemselves as authorities with the power toprescribe and proscribe English usage. Theirfirst aim had been to codify the grammar ofEnglish in a set of rules. Like those whoadvocated the formation of an academy,they wanted to prove that English wascapable of being described systematically.Secondly, the grammarians saw themselvesas lawgivers, settling disputed matters basedon their own judgment. Variation in usage

was not to be permitted. If there were twoalternate forms, the grammarian thoughtthat one must be wrong. They weredecisively against any uncertainty in usage.Once a pronouncement had been made on acase of divided usage, ever after the alternateform was completely condemned. Thirdly,the grammarians took it upon themselves topoint out supposed errors and to hold them

up for display as examples of what neededto be corrected and improved upon inlanguage. They seemed to delight inexamining the writing of the best writers ofthe day looking for usage that could becondemned. Priestley (1761) stands out as

an exception to this attitude.

Lowth's remarks in his grammar area good example of these aims in that he isopenly a corrector of improper usage (Baron1982: 140). Lowth believed that English wasregular and could be systematized in agrammar of rules. He said that it was notEnglish itself, but usage that was at fault.Secondly, Lowth is quite certain about therules that he lays down. Occasionally, veryoccasionally, he uses a modest "I think"about some pronouncement, but these timesare very rare indeed. He was not hesitantabout setting himself up as the ultimateauthority. Thirdly, he believed in usingexamples both good and bad as apedagogical tool. He states that "theprincipal design of a Grammar of anyLanguage is to teach us to express ourselveswith propriety in that Language, and to beable to judge of every phrase and form ofconstruction, whether it be right or not. Theplain way of doing this, is to lay down rules,

and to illustrate them by examples. Butbesides shewing what is right, the mattermay be further explained by pointing outwhat is wrong" (Lowth 1762, x). Priestley'sgrammar on the other hand had quitedifferent aims. He described his Rudimentsof English Grammaras simply a collection ofobservations on the structure of it, andsystem of rules for the proper use of it"(Priestley 1761: 9). Priestley, well known forhis discovery of oxygen, being influenced bythis scientific orientation, was more likely to

treat language as yet another phenomenonto be observed objectively. Unlike mostEnglish grammars of the times, which weresimply Latin grammars with English wordssubstituted for the Latin words, Priestley'sgrammar contained strikingly independentand fresh insights.


20/26



6.1. Methods.

Eighteenth-century grammarians forthe most part appealed to the Latin systemof eight Pricianic classes. They eitherfollowed this pattern or felt compelled tojustify their divergence from it. If Englishwas found to differ from the preferred Latingrammatical model, it was considered to befaulty. Priestley was opposed to basingEnglish grammars on Latin models, ofcourse. Many grammarians, among whomLowth is an example, based theirpronouncements wholly upon personalpreferences, based on some form of logic oranalogy, or even some feature of their owndialect, which they would consider to be thecorrect one. Whenever Latin was deemednot efficacious for settling disputed points,the grammarians turned to the authority ofusage. Priestley was especially careful tobase his analyses upon usage; whereasLowth primarily cited passages of goodwriters as specimens of error in writing.

6.2. Usage

Usage had been recognized as anissue as far back as Quintilian in the firstcentury. They were troubled by dividedusage even then. While most grammariansof the eighteenth century agreed that usagemust be the factor governing correctness,what they could not agree on was whoseusage should set the standard. For mostgrammarians it was their own usage thatformed the criterion by which the rest oflanguage must be gauged. Some criticsfreely expressed their own personal dislikes,like Swift's dislike of monosyllables likedrudg'd, contracted forms like mob, and newexpressions like banter. Samuel Johnsonrailed against the form noways, calling those

who used this word "barbarians". GeorgeCampbell was quick to point out that thesebarbarians were only Pope, Swift, Addison,Locke and other celebrated writers of theday (Bambas 1980: 181). Lowth, too, was notloath to use reputable writers as examples ofimproprieties. For example, he condemnsShakespeare's and Milton's use of theunstressed ye in oblique cases. Correct usage

for Lowth apparently meant his own usage.Priestley's appreciation of the role of usagein defining correct grammar was quitedifferent. Priestley was likely to invoke theexample of reputable writers for the purposeof settling some disputed point. For

example in the matter of what case pronounsshould be when used after the copula verb,Priestley cites these observations: "Are thesethe houses you were speaking of? Yes, theyare them. Who is there? It is me. It is him,etc. It is not me you are in love with(Addison). It cannot be me (Swift) (Gordon1972: 260). Such tolerance and detachment,however, were not to the public taste, whichcraved a more uncompromising and decisiveapproach.

George Campbell, a Scottish divine,also showed great respect for the evidence ofusage and is responsible for a definition ofgood usage that has not been improved onand is still in use today. In his Philosophy ofRhetoric, published in 1776, Campbelldefines good English as English which is"reputable, national, and present". He de-fines national as being neither rural norforeign, especially rejecting argumentsdrawn from analogies to Latin and French.His present usage for Campbell was not the

usage of the moment. He saw that what weaccept in the present as good may in timeprove to have been merely the whim of themoment. His present usage refers to theusage of the recent past, which has stood thetest of time. Reputable use Campbellrecognizes as difficult to define. "Whatevermodes of speech are authorized as good bythe writings of a great number, if not themajority, of celebrated authors." Thisconcept today is usually stated as "the bestuse of the best speakers and writers"

(Bambas 1980: 183).6.3.Weakness of the Grammarians

Most of the mistakes the eighteenth-century grammarians made can be traced totheir ignorance of the processes of linguisticchange. Although the historical study ofEnglish was just beginning, materials werenot readily available and their importance


21/26



was not recognized. Specifically, the greatweakness was their failure to recognize theimportance of usage as the final arbiter inlinguistic matters. There were one or twogrammarians or rhetoricians who did recog-nize the importance of usage, but most of the

grammarians mention usage, then proceedto combine description and prescriptiontogether. They do not put into practice whatthey say in theory. It was a weakness toothat the grammarians disagreed amongthemselves so frequently as to what thecorrect form was. It became a game withthem to find examples of bad writing in thebest writers. It was also a weakness of thegrammarians that they did not acknowledgethe validity and legitimacy of divided usage.Even those grammarians who followed the

criterion of usage were inclined to settle onone form or the other based on the majorityof writers and speakers. Even Campbelljudged one form right and the otherbarbarous, rather than accepting what usageplainly shows: that two forms may beequally correct. Another weakness of thegrammarians was that they did not realize oracknowledge the changes that take place inlanguage, and that the forces that controlthese changes are too complex to be fullyunderstood and predicted. In tune with the

rationalistic temper of the times, theybelieved that everything could beunderstood by logic and by analogy and thatsolutions could be arrived at by decree. Thegrammarians did not realize that every timethey ignored usage, they further widenedthe gap between the written form and thespoken form of language. While this has notproven to be an insurmountable problem inthe two centuries since the grammariansworked, the authoritarian legacy left by theprescriptivist grammarians, which today

does not allow the written form to keep pacefully with the spoken forms of English, mayone day result in a gap between writing andspeech that is as broad as the gap betweenwritten forms of modern English andChaucerian English. Finally, a weakness ofthe grammarians was that they put forthobjections to individual expressions. Thischaracteristic is not confined to the

eighteenth century by any means, but it wasa large part of the prevailing attitude towardlanguage. That most of the words criticizedby the grammarians are still with us is proofof the futility of trying to meddle with thenatural course of linguistic history.

6.4.Examples of Eighteenth-centuryPrescriptivism at Work

Many of the preferences now accepted inour handbooks as correct were first judgedso in the eighteenth century. Lowth statedsome problems with adjectives and adverbs,noting that writers like Dryden and Swiftused adjectives as adverbs, like "extremeelaborate" and "extreme unwilling. Somegrammarians advocated adding -ly to alladverbs, giving such forms like soonly,lowlily, friendlily (Bambas 1980: 175). Lowthalso commented on the illogic of doublecomparatives like lesserand worser. He saysthat lesser is less objectionable because heheard it more often, thus implying that thecriterion of usage should be used as theshaper of the standard. Worserhas droppedout of common usage, of course, while lesserremains only in certain environments, like"lesser evil". Another innovation of this timewas the differentiation of the comparativeand superlative degrees of adjectives (Baughand Cable 1978: 278).

Sentence-final prepositions are alsocondemned as improper for the first timeduring this period. Dryden notes that it is acommon fault of Ben Jonsons to use asentence-final preposition.

The waves and dens of beasts couldnot receive/The bodies that those souls werefrighted from.

Dryden observes that he too is guilty

of this fault, and indeed in the secondedition of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy, hecarefully edits all sentences that hadpreviously contained sentence-finalprepositions. The fact that if he and Jonsonused this construction it must be natural,good English, did not occur to Dryden or toanyone else either for a long, long time(Bambas 1980: 163). Other prepositional


22/26



usage that was legislated by the eighteenthcentury grammarians is the differencebetween between and among.

The correct case of pronouns hasbecome a touchstone for modern purists ofEnglish usage. Lowth was adamant instating that nominative case must be usedafter the copula. "The Verb to Be has alwaysa Nominative Case after it; as, it was I andnot He, that did it: unless it be in theInfinitive Mode; though you took it to beHim (Lowth 1762: 105,106). Even today,people who usually do not pay too muchattention to grammar exhibit great insecurityin their choice of pronouns.

Verbs also caused the grammarianssome trouble. Expressions like had rather

and had better were condemned alike byJohnson, Lowth, and Campbell (Baugh andCable 1978: 277). The distinction between lieand lay was apparently first specified in thelast half of the eighteenth century. Lowthsupplied the theory of an understood verbafter than or as for determining correctpronoun usage. One of his examples is "Youare not so tall as I [am]." Lowth almostgleefully cites examples of incorrect usageby Swift: "than me," and Hobbes: "as them."Lowth's theory won general acceptance as

the ideal way to resolve the problem of caseform after than and as. The grammariansalso suggested that the pattern for strongverbs should be kept. Lowth wanted to keepthe paradigm sit, sat, sitten, and spit, spat,and spitten, observing that analogy to otherstrong verbs plainly requires sitten. He wasalso critical of the merging of past and pastparticiple forms of verbs, citing examples ofmisuse in these revered authors, such as:Milton: have spoke, had rode, was took;Dryden: "have began"; Pope: "The bard

begun"; Addison: "Mr. Milton was wrote.The men begun"; and Swift: "had not arose,have stole, have mistook" (Finegan 1980: 25).Through the agency of grammarians likeLowth, the apparent merger of these twoforms never gained credence as correctEnglish. Another problem with verbs wasthe question of concord. You was wasespecially a problem. Defended as correct in

the singular, Lowth and Priestley and otherswere against it, and it subsequently gaveway to you were. The pronoun ye was also asource of perturbation. Lowth goes on atsome length about this pronoun and citesPrior and Milton as using this pronoun quite

incorrectly, seemingly quite oblivious to thefact that by his generation ye was not incommon usage at all. Another concordproblem had to do with demonstrativeadjective and noun concord. Lowth thinksthat the pattern this means, that means is quiteillogical and that it ought to be these meansand that mean. However, to this day, meansis considered a singular noun, and Lowthsand other grammarians goal of logicalconsistency has not been met (Bambas 1980:175).

No doubt the grammarians of theAge of Reason found it intolerable that shalland will should be interchangeable. JohnWallis in his Grammatica Linguae Anglicanaefirst states that simple future is expressed by

shall in the first person and will in the secondand third persons. It was during theeighteenth century that such a scheme wascompletely accepted. Of course the systembecame more complicated when mood andother factors were taken into consideration.

By the early twentieth century, H .W. and F.G. Fowler spent more than twenty pages inThe King's English in an excruciatingexplanation of the use of shall and will. Theyremark that the correct usage of shall and willcomes naturally to southern Englishmen(who will find most of this sectionsuperfluous), but "so complicated thatthose who are not to the manner born canhardly acquire it. Bambas notes that thosewho got it wrong were only Wilde, Yeats,Stevenson, the London Times, Gladstone,

and the "highly reputable grammarianHenry Sweet" (Bambas 1980: 179). It isnotable that this is a case of prescriptivismactually working, if only for one dialect. Forthe most part, the flow of living languageignored the prescriptions.

The yearning for absolutes gave risealso to the question of what pronoun to usefor impersonal reference at the beginning of


23/26



a subordinate clause. The propriety of usingwhose as the possessive of which wasproscribed by the purists. Lowth quotesDryden: The question, whose solution Irequire," and Addison: "Is there any otherdoctrine, whose followers are punished?

Based on an incomplete paradigm for which,common usage made use of the word whoseto fill in the paradigm.

Nom. who which

Gen. whose *whiches (or *which's)

Dat. whom *whichem

As a result, purists like Lowth required thatfor the possessive function of which, theproper construction would be of which, thusmaking the correct form of Dryden's

statement: "The question, the solution ofwhich I require..." Generally speaking, mostpeople have ignored this stricture. A similarproblem was the use of that for which andwho. Grammarians have preferred which forinanimate things and who for persons,though not entirely proscribing that. Again,common preference has generally tended toignore this stricture by using that foranything.

Other usages that were settled at thistime include different from, rather thandifferent than or to, between you and me, notbetween you and I, the condemnation of thishere and that there. Slightly later on, but inthe same vein, it was discovered that to splitEnglish infinitives was an impropriety,despite the evidence of such sentences as"He was so reluctant to go that he managed

to just miss the train", in which the splitposition is the best possible one for themeaning intended.

The eighteenth century is responsible

for the final stamp of disapproval onmultiple or double negatives. Lowthexplicitly stated the rule that two negativesare equivalent to an affirmative. Thismathematical rule was no doubt applied tolanguage by reason of analogy to algebra.Priestley and a few other grammariansaccepted the double negative, giving asreasons its common use in older forms of

English, its widespread use in commonspeech, and its use in writers of standardEnglish like Addison (Baron 1982: 138).Multiple negation was common in EarlyEnglish. Chaucer said of the Knight, "Henevere yet no vileynye ne sayde /In al his lyf

unto no maner wight. Which in modernEnglish is roughly equivalent to saying, "Hedidn't never say nothing bad to nobodynohow." Because of reasons which we donot know, multiple negation was rare by thesixteenth century, although there are still afew instances of it in Shakespeare. By theeighteenth century it was disappearing fromstandard speech, but still flourishing innonstandard speech, as it still does today.People who say "I didn't do nothing" arenever mistaken for making an affirmative

statement.

7.0. RESULTS OF THE

PRESCRIPTIVISTS

The long-term effects of theprescriptive movement to make Englishbetter by applying logic and analogy is inmany ways hard to determine. Some resultsmay be noted, however.

As a consequence of the prescriptivistmovement, people no longer felt, and it

could no longer be said, that English had norules. Today many feel that it may have toomany. Some of the rules that the earlygrammarians and lexicographers formulatedhave now been discarded. Some of themthat have been retained are of doubtfulvalidity, yet they still have a place in moderngrammars and impose their judgments onpeople who acknowledge the value ofauthority on correctness. Certainly manymatters which were in disputed usageduring the time of Dryden and Swift were

settled.

The distinction between standardand non-standard usage has beenmaintained by the prominence ofprescriptive grammars in the Englishlanguage school systems. By maintainingthis distinction, standard usage hascontinued to be a marker of superior social


24/26



status. Now, as during the time of the firstprescriptive grammarians, acquiring thestandard form of language is part of anysocial advancement. Prescriptivism may bedefended in various ways, but it has alsobeen called the cause of stilted, lifeless, but

correct prose. It has been noted that it is aconstraining effect on the free flow of somewriters expression (Bambas 1980: 184).

Whatever the grounds on which thedecisions were reached about the correctstandards, however arbitrary the choice,however faulty the reasoning behind thechoice, the work of prescriptivistgrammarians has indeed led to the fixing ofan amazing number of points of disputedusage.


25/26



References

Bambas, Rudolph C. 1980. The Englishlanguage: Its origin and history.Norman, OK: The University ofOklahoma Press.

Baron, Dennis E. 1982. Grammar and goodtaste: Reforming the Americanlanguage. New Haven and London:Yale University Press.

Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas.1978. A history of the Englishlanguage, third edition. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc.

Crowley, Tony. 1996. Language in history:Theories and texts. London andNew York: Routledge.

Durant, Will and Ariel. 1963. The story ofcivilization: Part VIII : The age ofLouis XIV. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Finegan, Edward. 1980. Attitudes towardEnglish usage: The history of a war ofwords. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2000. The Spectator,the politics of social networks, andlanguage standardization in

eighteenth century England. InLaura Wright (ed.) The developmentof Standard English 1300-1800:Theories, descriptions, conflicts.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Garside, P. L. 1990. London and theHome counties in F. M. L.Thompson (ed.), The Cambridgesocial history of Britain 1750-1950,Vol. I: Regions and communities.

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Gordon, James D. 1972. The Englishlanguage: An historical introduction.New York: Thomas Y. CroweCompany.

Gough, James. 1754. A practical grammarof the English tongue. In R. C.

Alston (ed.) English linguistics 1500-1800: A collection of facsimilereprints, no. 13. Menston, England:The Scolar Press Limited, 1969.

Hawkins, Sir John. 1961. The life of SamuelJohnson. In Wells 1973.

Hebel, J. William; Hudson, Hoyt H.;Johnson, Francis R.; and Green, A.Wigfall. 1952. Prose of the EnglishRenaissance. In Wells 1973.

Hughes, John P. 1962. The science oflanguage. New York: RandomHouse. In Finegan 1980.

Johnson, Sammel. 1747. The plan of adictionary. In R. C. Alston (ed.)EngIish linguistics 1500-1800: A

collection of facsimile reprints, no.223. Menston, England: The ScolarPress, 1970.

Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A dictionary of theEnglish language: in which the wordsare deduced from their originals.London: F. and C. Rivington, et al.[Pagination mine beginning withthe Preface.]

Lowth, Robert. 1762. A short introductionto English grammar. In R. C. Alston

(ed.) English linguistics 1500-1800:A collection of facsimile reprints, no.18. Menston, England: The ScolarPress Limited, 1969.

Oldmixon, John. 1712. Reflections on Dr.Swift's letter. In R. C. Alston (ed.)English linguistics 1500-1800: Acollection of facsimile reprints, no.254. Menston, England: TheScolar Press Limited, 1970.

Priestley, Joseph. 1761. The rudiments of

English grammar. In Finegan 1980.Raven, James. 1992. Judging new wealth:

Popular publishing and responses tocommerce in England, 1750-1800.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Robins, R. H. 1979. A short history oflinguistics. London and NY:Longman.


26/26


Swift, Jonathan. 1712. A proposal forcorrecting, improving andascertaining the English tongue. In R.C. Alston (ed.) English linguistics1500-1800: A collection of facsimilereprints, no. 213. Menston,

England: The Scolar Press Limited1969.

Thompson, F. M. L. 1990. The Cambridgesocial history of Britain 1750-1950,Vol. I: Regions and communities.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Wells, Ronald A. 1973. Dictionaries and theauthoritarian tradition: A study inEnglish usage and lexicography. TheHague: Mouton.

Wright, Laura. 2000. The development ofStandard English 1300-1800:Theories, description, conflicts.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Wright, Susan. 1994. Joseph Addisonand the grammarians, in D. Steinand I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade(eds), Towards a Standard English,1600-1800. The Hague: Mouton deGruyter.

Documents

The Rise of Prescriptivism in English