Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space 9781783096510

Citation preview

Prescription and Tradition in Language

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Series Editors: John Edwards, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada and Dalhousie University, Canada and Leigh Oakes, Queen Mary, University of London, UK. Multilingual Matters series publishes books on bilingualism, bilingual education, immersion education, second language learning, language policy, multiculturalism. The editor is particularly interested in ‘macro’ level studies of language policies, language maintenance, language shift, language revival and language planning. Books in the series discuss the relationship between language in a broad sense and larger cultural issues, particularly identity related ones. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or can be obtained by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS: 165

Prescription and Tradition in Language Establishing Standards across Time and Space

Edited by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Carol Percy

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, editor. | Percy, Carol, editor. Title: Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space/Edited by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Carol Percy. Description: Bristol; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, [2016] | Series: Multilingual Matters: 165 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016022810| ISBN 9781783096503 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781783096527 (epub) | ISBN 9781783096534 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Space and time in language–History. | English language–Grammar–History. | Standard language–History. Classification: LCC P37.5.S65 P85 2016 | DDC 306.44–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016022810 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-650-3 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2017 Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Carol Percy and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

1

Acknowledgements Contributors

ix xi

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space Carol Percy and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade

1

Part 1: General and Theoretical 2

Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm Dick Smakman and Sandra Nekesa Barasa

3

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems Florian Coulmas

39

4

‘What is Correct Chinese?’ Revisited Henning Klöter

57

5

The Uselessness of the Useful: Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts Felix K. Ameka

71

6

Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language Katja Lochtman

88

v

23

vi

Contents

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition 7

Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade

105

8

‘A Higher Standard of Correctness than is Quite Desirable’: Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals Rita Queiroz de Barros

121

9

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815–1830) Gijsbert Rutten and Rik Vosters

137

10 The Syntax of Others: ‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19thand Early 20th-Century Icelandic Heimir van der Feest Viðarsson

152

11 School Grammars and Language Guides: Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century Dominik Banhold

168

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition 12 A Perspective on Prescriptivism: Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage Robin Straaijer

185

13 Which Items Need to be Standardised? Variation in the Choice of Entries in Usage Guides Mark Kaunisto

202

14 ‘Garnering’ Respect? The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition Matthijs Smits

221

15 Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional Don Chapman

238

Contents

vii

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges 16 ‘Goodbye, Sweet England’: Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media Martin Gill 17 Prescription and Tradition: From the French Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process (1996–2014) Danielle Candel 18 Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian Arto Mustajoki 19 Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology Loreta Vaicekauskienė

255

273

288

303

20 Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia Aleksandra Gjurkova

318

21 The Standardisation Process of Frisian: A Word List as a Result Pieter Duijff

331

22 The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today, between Maintenance and Variation Miren Lourdes Oñederra

342

Epilogue: On Establishing the Standard Language – and Language Standards Pam Peters

355

Index

367

Acknowledgements

This book originated from a conference held at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics in June 2013, called ‘Prescription and Tradition in Language’. The conference was the fourth in a series of earlier, highly successful events, held in Sheffield, UK, in 2003, in Ragusa, Italy (Sicily), in 2006 and in Toronto, Canada, in 2009. The general call for papers produced a range of topics relating to the conference’s general theme, which allowed the organisers, Ton van Haaften, Riikka Länsisalmi, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Jeroen Wiedenhof, to present a most interesting and, as it turned out, well-received scholarly programme. The Leiden University Centre for Linguistics is gratefully acknowledged for having contributed to the funding of the conference. For the purpose of the present collection, we, the editors, invited a selected number of speakers to submit their papers in the form of chapters for a book on the topic, and we are grateful to the series editor of Multilingual Matters, John Edwards, for recognising the potential of the book. We are also grateful to the external reviewers – Rolf Bremmer, Tatjana Bulajeva, Don Chapman, Anne Curzan, Martin Durrell, José Ignacio Hualde, Douglas A. Kibbee, Christina E. Kramer, Randy J. LaPolla, Jack Lynch, Nicola McLelland, Maarten Mous, Pam Peters, Gijsbert Rutten, Lara RyazanovaClarke, Robin Straaijer, Marijke van der Wal, Jeroen Wiedenhof, Kendra Willson and Laura Wright – whose comments and suggestions proved of great value, and in particular to Pam Peters for accepting our invitation to write an epilogue to the book. We should, finally, like to acknowledge the editorial assistance of Robin Straaijer in the final stages of the typescript production, of Vicki Low for compiling the index, of Anandhi Bashyam for her meticulous copy-editing of the typescript, and Kim Eggleton, Anna Roderick, Sarah Williams and Florence McClelland for carefully guiding the publishing process. In the end, however, it is of course the authors of the chapters whom we are most grateful to for contributing to the book in the first place and to responding to our editorial comments and queries with such patience and good cheer throughout. It is thanks to them that this book came into existence in the first place. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Carol Percy January 2016 ix

Contributors

Felix K. Ameka teaches (African) Linguistics at the University of Leiden, and is a visiting researcher of the Language and Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen (The Netherlands). His interests are in language description/documentation, typology, semantics, pragmatics, contact, areal and anthropological linguistics, ethnography of communication and West African languages. He has numerous publications on these topics. He has also (co-)edited volumes on grammar writing, locative predication, tense-aspect-modality, Ghanaian linguistics and interjections. Currently, he is documenting Likpe language and culture (Ghana) and preparing a pan-dialectal grammar of Ewe (with James Essegbey). He is editor-in-chief of the Journal of African Languages and Linguistics. Wendy Ayres-Bennett is Professor of French Philology and Linguistics, University of Cambridge. She specialises in the history of French and the history of linguistic thought. Her research interests include standardisation and codification, linguistic ideology and policy, variation and change. She currently directs a major research project on volumes of observations on the French language. The electronic Corpus des remarques sur la langue française (XVIIe siècle) was published in 2011, together with a monograph on the genre (with Magali Seijido), Remarques et observations sur la langue française, histoire et évolution d’un genre (2011), which was awarded the French Academy’s Prix Georges Dumézil (2013). Dominik Banhold was born in Hattingen (Germany) in 1985 and studied German and English literature and linguistics as well as education at the University of Würzburg. After his state exam in 2013, he was a PhD student and research assistant at the Department of German Linguistics in Würzburg. He was awarded his PhD from the University of Würzburg in 2015 for a thesis on morphological variants in historical school grammars. Banhold has taught several courses on synchronic and diachronic linguistics in Würzburg and at the Universities of Bologna, Santiago de Compostella and Umeå.

xi

xii

Contributors

Sandra Nekesa Barasa is a senior lecturer at Radboud University In’to Language Centre in Nijmegen (The Netherlands). She holds a PhD from the University of Leiden, with a thesis called Language, mobile phones and internet: A study of SMS texting, email, IMm and SNS chats in computer mediated communication (CMC) in Kenya. Her research interests include language and communication in social media, computer-mediated communication, youth language and slang, language contact, multilingualism and codeswitching, especially in relation to the East Africa region. Recent publications include a study of multilingualism in East Africa and of codeswitching in computer-mediated communication. Danielle Candel’s main research areas are prescriptive linguistics and terminology and descriptive lexicography. She has a double expertise in lexicography (through her active participation in the writing of the CNRS dictionary Trésor de la langue française) and in terminology (through extensive linguistic expertise and support for French Terminology and Neology Committees). Her publications focus on scientific and technical vocabularies and on lexicographical and terminological theories and practices, specifically in the French institutional framework. After having been a research scientist in the CNRS laboratory ‘History of linguistic theories’, University Paris Diderot (Paris 7) (France), she is now an associate member of this laboratory. Don Chapman is Associate Professor of Linguistics and English Language at Brigham Young University (USA). His main research interest in prescriptivism is in developing methods for evaluating the usefulness of particular prescriptive rules in English. Previous publications on prescriptivism include ‘You say nucular, I Say your stupid: Popular prescriptivism in the politics of the United States’, ‘Enforcing or effacing useful distinctions?: imply vs. infer’, ‘The eighteenth-century grammarians as language experts’ and ‘Bad ideas in the history of English usage’. His expertise in Old English focuses on vocabulary, especially affixation and creative compounding. Florian Coulmas is Senior Professor of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Duisburg-Essen University (Germany). From 2004 to 2014, he served as director of the German Institute for Japanese Studies, Tokyo (Japan). His long-standing interest in the social and political functions of language is informed by working and living alternately in East Asia and Europe. He is the author of the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Writing Systems and Associate Editor of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. His teaching and research activities include appointments at Georgetown University, Washington DC, the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Tokyo and Chuo University, Tokyo.

Contributors

xiii

Pieter Duijff studied Frisian language and literature at the Vrije Universiteit (Free University) in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and since 1992 has been a member of the linguistic staff of the Fryske Akademy ‘Frisian Academy’ in Leeuwarden. He specialises in Frisian lexicography and has compiled a bilingual legal Frisian dictionary and a dictionary of urban Frisian. He was also one of the editors of the 25-volume dictionary Wurdboek fan de Fryske Taal ‘Dictionary of the Frisian Language’ and editor-in-chief of a monolingual Frisian desk dictionary (2008). He teaches Frisian at one of the two teacher training colleges in Leeuwarden and at the University of Amsterdam. Martin Gill is Associate Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature at Åbo Akademi University (Finland). His main research interests are in sociolinguistics, cultural studies and computer-mediated communication, particularly issues of authenticity/authentication, identity and belonging. Recent publications include ‘Authentication and Nigerian letters’ in Susan Herring, Dieter Stein and Tuija Virtanen (eds) Handbook of the Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication (2013), and ‘“Real communities”, rhetorical borders: Authenticating British identity in political discourse and on-line debate’ in Véronique Lacoste, Jakob Leimgruber and Thiemo Breyer (eds) Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (2014). Aleksandra Gjurkova is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Macedonian Language, Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje (Macedonia). She received a PhD in linguistics from this university in 2006. Her research interests include historical syntax, the syntax of Macedonian, stylistics and sociolinguistics. She has published a monograph called Syntax of Compound Sentences in Church Slavic Manuscripts of the Macedonian Recension (2008), as well as several articles that deal with Macedonian from a sociolinguistic perspective (2012, 2013). She is a member of the Committee for Sociolinguistics, of the Committee for Stylistics of the International Slavistics Committee and of the editorial board of the periodical Makedonski Jazik issued by the Institute of Macedonian Language. Mark Kaunisto received his PhD in English Philology from the University of Tampere (Finland) in 2004, and is now a senior lecturer in the programme of English language, translation and literature studies at the University of Tampere. During the research for the chapter included in the present volume, he was a lecturer in the English department at the University of Jyväskylä. His research interests include historical and present-day English word formation processes, morphology, syntax and corpus linguistics, and he has published a monograph called Variation and Change in the Lexicon: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Adjectives in English Ending in -ic and -ical (2007).

xiv

Contributors

Henning Klöter is Professor of Modern Chinese Languages and Literatures at the Humboldt University of Berlin. He has previously held positions at the universities of Göttingen, Mainz, Bochum and National Taiwan Normal University. His major publications are Written Taiwanese (2005) and The Language of the Sangleys: A Chinese Vernacular in Missionary Documents of the Seventeenth Century (2011). His current research is concerned with the social meanings and the cultural manifestations of language variation and multilingualism in China. Katja Lochtman is Associate Professor in German Linguistics and Foreign Language Learning Pedagogy (German as a foreign language) at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium). Her research interests include variationist linguistics (in German), foreign language acquisition, German as a foreign language, multilingualism and second and foreign language learning pedagogy in multilingual contexts. She has published in several international journals such as the International Journal of Educational Research, Muttersprache and Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen. Arto Mustajoki is Professor of Russian Language and Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki (Finland). His research interests include functional syntax, corpus linguistics, linguistic methodology, cross-cultural communication, communication failures, Russian mentality and research policy. He has published seven books and about a hundred articles in Russian, English and Finnish, and he is active in popularising research. With several colleagues, he has compiled textbooks, dictionaries, TV courses and computer programs for learning Russian. In 2013, he was awarded the State Prize for his book Light Introduction to Russian. His blogs on science policy, the university and Russia are very popular. Miren Lourdes Oñederra is Professor of Basque Phonology at the University of the Basque Country (Spain). She graduated from the University of Deusto in 1980, obtained an MA in Linguistics from the University of Iowa (1982) and a PhD in Basque Philology from the University of the Basque Country (1987). She has been a full member of the Royal Academy of the Basque Language since 2007, where she has held the position of Head of the Pronunciation Committee since 2010. She mainly works on Basque phonology, focusing on its theoretical implications both for general phonology and the sociolinguistic history of the Basque language. Carol Percy is Professor of English at the University of Toronto (Canada). Her interdisciplinary histories of 18th-century prescriptivism have featured such famous figures as Captain Cook, King George III and Thomas Jefferson as well as women grammarians and anonymous book reviewers. She has contributed to Transatlantic Perspectives on Late Modern English

Contributors

xv

(2015), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change (2010), Social Roles and Language Practices in Late Modern English (2010), Educating the Child in Enlightenment Britain (2009), Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England (2008) and many journals. She also co-edited Languages of Nation: Attitudes and Norms for Multilingual Matters (2012). Pam Peters is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, and Emeritus Professor of Macquarie University. Her research in Australian and international English usage is grounded in corpus linguistics, and informs major publications such as the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (CUP, 2004) and the Cambridge Guide to Australian English Usage (2007). She was Director of Macquarie University’s Dictionary Research Centre (2000−2007), where she led the compilation of reference corpora for researching Australian English morphosyntax, and co-edited Comparative Studies of Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and Beyond (2009), published by John Benjamins. Her most recent monograph is the Cambridge Dictionary of English Grammar (2013). Rita Queiroz de Barros has an MA in Sociolinguistics (1994) and a PhD in English Linguistics (2004) awarded by the Universidade de Lisboa (Portugal). She is Assistant Professor at that university’s School of Arts and Humanities, where she teaches various courses within English Linguistics. Her main research interests lie within English (Historical) Sociolinguistics, but she has also published on historical lexicography and on language variation and translation. She is a member of the Translation and Reception Studies research group of the University of Lisbon Centre for English Studies. Gijsbert Rutten is Senior Researcher in Historical Sociolinguistics of Dutch and Assistant Professor in Dutch Historical Linguistics at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (The Netherlands). He is the Director of the research project ‘Going Dutch: The Construction of Dutch in Policy, Practice and Discourse, 1750−1850’. Recent books he has published include Letters as Loot: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Dutch (co-authored with Marijke van der Wal, 2014), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600−1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective (co-edited with Rik Vosters and Wim Vandenbussche, 2014) and Past, Present and Future of a Language Border: Germanic-Romance Encounters in the Low Countries (co-edited with Catharina Peersman and Rik Vosters, 2015). Dick Smakman is Assistant Professor at the University of Leiden. His interests include intra- and inter-speaker pronunciation variation and intercultural sociolinguistics. In 2015, he published Globalising Sociolinguistics. Challenging and Expanding Theory (co-edited with Patrick Heinrich

xvi

Contributors

from Ca’ Foscari University of Venice). He is currently writing Discovering Sociolinguistics. An Introduction to Theories and Applications (expected in 2016). Matthijs Smits has an MA degree from the University of Leiden (The Netherlands) (English Historical Sociolinguistics) and an MSc degree from the University of Glasgow (Human Rights and International Politics). He is a lecturer in English at the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences. His research interests include normative grammar and linguistic prescription, as well as corpus linguistics. Previous subjects he has researched are William Cobbett’s Grammar of the English Language and the prescriptive influence and linguistic polemicism of Henry Louis Mencken’s The American Language. Robin Straaijer was a postdoctoral researcher in the project ‘Bridging the Unbridgeable: Linguists, Prescriptivists and the General Public’ at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (The Netherlands). He received an MA in English Language and Literature from the University of Amsterdam and obtained a PhD from Leiden University with his dissertation Joseph Priestley, Grammarian: Late Modern English Normativism and Usage in a Sociohistorical Context (2011). He has built a database of English usage guides and usage problems called the Hyper Usage Guide of English (HUGE) as part of the Bridging the Unbridgeable project. He is currently working as an independent researcher and reviewer. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade has a chair in English Sociohistorical Linguistics at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (The Netherlands). She specialises in the English standardisation process (codification, prescription), and is interested in the relationship between grammar rules and actual usage. Her most recent books are An Introduction to Late Modern English (2009), The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism (2011) and In Search of Jane Austen: The Language of the Letters (2014). She is the director of the research project ‘Bridging the Unbridgeable: Linguists, Prescriptivists and the General Public’, and is writing a monograph on the English usage guide. Loreta Vaicekauskienė is Head of the Centre of Sociolinguistics and Senior Researcher at the Research Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Associate Professor at the Centre for Scandinavian Studies at Vilnius University and a board member of the Association for Applied Linguistics of Lithuania. Her research interests include language planning and standardisation ideologies, language attitudes, social meanings of language variation, language contacts and global English. She has published a monograph called Naujieji lietuvių kalbos svetimžodžiai: kalbos politika ir vartosena ‘New borrowings in Lithuanian: Language policies and use’ (2007) and co-edited Danish-Lithuanian Dictionary (2013, with Ebbe Flatau), and currently is editor of two forthcoming volumes on language ideologies in Lithuania.

Contributors

xvii

Heimir van der Feest Viðarsson received his BA degree in Icelandic Literature and Linguistics in 2006 and his MA degree in Icelandic Linguistics in 2009 from the University of Iceland. He is currently a PhD student at the University of Iceland, participating in the research project ‘Language Change and Linguistic Variation in Nineteenth-Century Icelandic and the Emergence of a National Standard’ led by Ásta Svavarsdóttir. He participated in the projects Changes in Case Marking in Insular Scandinavian (2004– 2006) and IceDiaSyn (2006–2008) with the Scandinavian research networks Scandinavian Dialect Syntax. His research focuses on the syntax of Icelandic from the perspective of socio-historical linguistics. Rik Vosters is Assistant Professor of Dutch Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium). He is co-editor of the Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, and has published extensively on Dutch historical sociolinguistics, focusing on language variation and change, language planning and language policy. Recent publications include Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600−1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective (co-edited with Gijsbert Rutten and Wim Vandenbussche, 2014), Sur la Langue Nationale: Taal en Taalpolitiek in het Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en het Jonge België (with Guy Janssens, 2014) and Past, Present and Future of a Language Border: Germanic-Romance Encounters in the Low Countries (co-edited with Catharina Peersman and Gijsbert Rutten, 2015). He is currently working on orality and literacy in 18th-century southern Dutch.

1 Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space Carol Percy and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade

Introduction Different languages have undergone different standardisation processes in the course of their histories. For some, such as English and Dutch, standard languages developed from the Renaissance onwards, while for other languages, e.g. Basque or Macedonian, standardisation was initiated only relatively recently. Whatever their origins, duration and distribution, all these developments reflect a perceived need for prescription, which itself derives from linguistic, cultural, religious, ideological, political, educational and other needs (see e.g. Edwards, 2012). These factors often occur in complex combinations. Moreover, although prescription is widely regarded as a late stage of the standardisation process, this categorisation is tied to studies of standards in monolingual, Western cultures. And even in these cultures recent large-scale corpus studies have confirmed that the relation between prescript and practice is both complicated and inconsistent. Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space contextualises case studies across languages and cultures, crystallising some key interrelationships between linguistic standardisation and prescription and between ideas and practices. These case studies consider some key questions: Historical. France has an academy; England has only had private initiatives. Do such different historical motives and contexts for prescriptivism produce different manifestations of present-day prescriptivism, and if so, how? The traditions for French and English have been well established since the 17th and 18th centuries. What rhetorical conventions perpetuate the tradition, presenting information as if they were already and have always been accepted? What happens when 1

2

Introduction

traditions cross oceans and change cultures? What issues are particular to the American tradition, for instance, in relation to the English one? Varieties of English have spread farther around the world in the course of the 20th century. How have loanwords – from English or from other languages – been regarded in different cultures? How do nationalistic idealisations of ‘traditional’ languages persist (or shift) amid language change and multilingualism – in Iceland and in Britain? What happens when prescriptive traditions are disrupted – for instance, upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union or of former Yugoslavia? Modern. Case studies in such political contexts allow us to contrast changes in both usage and attitudes. (How) do strong and centralised language policies translate into democratic, newly independent states like Lithuania and Macedonia? How distinctive are prescriptive issues relating to minority languages? Historical as well as present-day contexts allow contrastive studies: how does the status of Russian differ as a majority and as a minority language? And how does the status of Basque differ in France, where it is not an official language, from that in Spain, where it is a co-official one? Finally, what functions do the media have in the codification of such minority languages as Basque and Frisian? Has electronically mediated communication affected usage and popular attitudes to usage for Chinese, English, Lithuanian and Russian, and if so, how? General/theoretical. Many of the chapters in this book analyse the roles of linguists and academics in contemporary language planning, and the stereotypical gulf between professional and popular attitudes to language variation. In practice, to what extent have linguists’ political actions related to their work as language scientists? When linguists have codified and established contemporary language standards, to what extent and on what grounds have they recorded and tolerated variation? On a more abstract level, how do codifications and definitions of the ‘standard’ obscure the existence of variation? From cross-cultural and culturedependent definitions of a ‘standard’, can one abstract the elusive concept of standardness in language? To the extent that prescriptivism is culture dependent and politically motivated, do learners of foreign languages regard variation and error in different ways? Finally, if prescriptive attitudes are culture dependent, are there any predictable principles of prescriptivism? Might these be correlated not with social but with such formal factors as writing systems? The structure of our collection reflects the trends in our questions. Part 1 surveys General and Theoretical Approaches, considering formal as well as sociocultural factors. Part 2 applies the volume’s cross-cultural perspectives to case studies of Prescription and Tradition in Language. Part 3 provides in-depth perspectives on a specific tradition: Usage Guides: an English Tradition, and Part 4 concludes with Current Issues and Challenges, considering the impact of such factors as new media, political change and

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

3

transnational migration on attitudes to language. And the collection ends with an ‘Epilogue’ by Pam Peters, in which she reviews the chapters and places them in a wider international perspective.

The Chapters Part 1: General and Theoretical Linguistic prescription is often categorised as a final stage in the language standardisation process. This is done, for instance, in the model developed by Milroy and Milroy ([1985] 2012: 22−23), which is largely based on that by Haugen (1966). Though Haugen’s model is generally resorted to in discussions of standardisation processes of different languages, it is the absence of a prescription stage that makes it less suitable as a general model of standardisation for the topic dealt with in this collection (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2012). Linguistic prescriptivism, which may be defined as the ‘attempt to intervene in the “natural” social life of a language’ (Edwards, 2012: 17), may be regarded as, in effect, a reflection of the prescription stage, acquiring strong negative connotations in the process.1 Conceptions of standardisation have, moreover, mostly been abstracted from Western and monolingual cultures, and even within these they may not be uniform. Are there universal principles of prescription (and of prescriptivism), or might these be culture specific? With these questions in mind, many of the contributors in Part 1 consider prescription and its traditions in the contexts of multilingual and/or nonWestern language norms. Dick Smakman and Sandra Nekesa Barasa anchor this part, as well as the collection as a whole, with their chapter called ‘Defining “Standard”: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm’. They begin by identifying some of the stereotypical attributes of standard languages. In Western monolingual cultures, standard languages are typically defined as supraregional; inclusive as a lingua franca; exclusive as an official and prestigious medium of higher education and administration; codified and cultivated over time. Smakman and Barasa anatomise some of the realities of standards in multilingual countries. In postcolonial settings, the former colonial language may (or may not) retain its exclusive and official functions, while more inclusive and communicative functions are the properties of regional language(s). And in diglossic cultures, the social as well as the linguistic functions of standard languages may be separated: a cultivated standard language may index the prestige of its writer, but lack the social power of the language of the marketplace. In such settings, code-switching itself may serve as a kind of standard, since in reality it is documented in formal oral settings in multilingual cultures. And some lingua francas may not be codified or even written down. By surveying practices in multilingual countries, Smakman and Barasa discover some

4

Introduction

unexpected realities of standardisation and thus anticipate some related practices of prescription. Linguistic prescription attempts to reduce variation and to retard change (cf. Milroy & Milroy, [1985] 2012: 22, 35). In another comparative chapter and dealing with the topic on a more generally fundamental level, Florian Coulmas considers potential correlations between ‘Prescriptivism and Writing Systems’. Coulmas focuses on six different writing systems – from alphabetic and syllabic to logographic. He begins by considering how characters are organised in the system and how words (or roots, in Arabic) are organised in codifying texts like dictionaries. Organising principles differ across systems: the Roman alphabet is organised arbitrarily, Indic Devanāgarī, (Japanese) Kana and (Korean) Hangul characters are organised by the sounds they represent and logographic Chinese characters by their shape. In the case of Arabic characters, over time the system’s order has shifted from an alphabetic random order to one based on character shape; in Arabic dictionaries, elements appear in ‘root order’. The chapter’s subcategories assess potential connections between the types of writing systems and linguistic purism as well as with literacy and its difficulties. Loanwords disrupt the stability of standard languages and sometimes of their writing systems and their dictionaries as well. Loanwords seem harder to integrate into Chinese since its characters are associated with Chinese morphemes as well as syllables; in contrast, Japanese incorporates foreign characters as well as foreign loanwords. But puristic impulses are principally cultural: North Korea’s abandonment of Chinese characters in favour of the ‘national’ script, Hangul, can be understood as a form of written purism. Moreover, the existence of diglossia in a culture does not seem to reflect the complexity of its official language’s writing system: to those language users who had no opportunity to learn it, (potentially) phonetic Latin was as elite as Chinese. And ultimately there seems to be no clear relationship between the type of writing system and the speed of linguistic change: the phonetic systems of Romance and Arabic languages (and more recently of Korean and Japanese) do not seem to retard change; nor is there any evidence that diachronic change is speedier in languages related to and written in Chinese. Considering formal rather than sociocultural factors, Coulmas’s chapter keeps in focus some of the main aims of prescriptivism. Surveying differences between theoretical and practical standards concerns, Henning Klöter’s ‘“What is Correct Chinese?” Revisited’ focuses on a 1961 essay by Yuen Ren Chao (1892−1982), a Chinese-American linguist, language planner and author of the landmark Grammar of Spoken Chinese (1968). Unlike Coulmas, whose chapter deals with writing systems, Klöter focuses mostly on standardising speech, and specifically on the efficacy of the prescriptive methods used by the Chinese government to establish the northern Beijing dialect of Mandarin as the standard national pronunciation. The figure of the linguist Yuen Ren Chao allows Klöter to

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

5

focus on the process of standardisation and the impact of prescriptivism – from Chao’s first attempts to codify and record an artificial standard with some southern elements to the government’s eventual implementation of Beijing pronunciation in the spreading educational system. In the People’s Republic of China ‘state agencies’ are ‘the sole definers of correctness’. But Klöter can also contrast theory and practice: although the new standard was intended to be less elitist than 19th-century Mandarin, contemporary evidence suggests that standard Mandarin is neither widespread nor wellloved, used by a little more than half the population. Moreover, thanks to the new media, Klöter can observe that the general public is both aware and critical of state-sanctioned prescriptivism, here in the case of entry selection principles in the latest official dictionary of modern Chinese. Such variation in Mandarin is increasingly visible with China’s rise as an economic superpower and the language’s official status in Taiwan and Singapore. But Klöter observes that the pluricentricity of Mandarin is not (yet) acknowledged. And although a variety of ‘dialects’ are spoken in China, the ideology of national monolingualism (and an accompanying writing system) obscures multilingual realities. How are minority languages standardised in multilingual settings? While criticising the threats that prescriptivism poses to language variation, in ‘The Uselessness of the Useful: Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts’ Felix K. Ameka also shows that the drive to standardise language is a universal human one, however threatening or ineffectual. After illustrating how reducing a Mexican language to writing eliminates its pragmatic particles, Ameka documents instances of prescriptivism in a number of multilingual African countries, particularly in Ghana. He reports the official status of postcolonial English in Cameroon, where pidgin is prohibited on university campuses, and in Ghana, where some vernacular languages are stigmatised by teachers of the official language, English. Ameka documents the persistence of these pidgins and vernaculars, spoken despite prohibitions. Ameka also shows how some of these minority oral languages are subject to linguistic prescriptivism. South-eastern Ghana is so multilingual that the Ethnologue cannot map all the languages that are spoken there. In such multilingual settings, the variation between and within languages has produced some characteristic prescriptive behaviour. Adult speakers of a minority language like Nyagbo criticise children’s loanwords as a corruption of what they consider to be a more authentic variety of an uncodified language. And classroom teachers of an official language like Ewe criticise its student native speakers, whose dialect is inevitably different from the standard Ewe codified in the 19th century by European missionaries – a hybrid of no native variety. Ameka’s chapter focuses on the correction of children, at home and in the classroom, which is an important if not always effective site of prescriptive activity.

6

Introduction

If prescriptive attitudes reflect domestic national politics, do foreign learners of standard languages have different attitudes to those norms? Katja Lochtman describes how Belgian university learners conceive of correctness in ‘Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language’. She is particularly interested in learners’ awareness of and attitudes towards the kinds of language variation characteristic of native speakers. Incidentally confirming Ameka’s assertion that prescriptivism threatens regional dialects, Lochtman characterises the most typical ‘non-standard’ variants in the speech of native German speakers as colloquialisms as well as the kinds of ‘errors’ criticised by prescriptivists. A prominent prescriptivist in contemporary Germany is the stand-up comedian and journalist Bastian Sick (b. 1965). By using some of Sick’s articles to elicit essays by Belgian learners of German, Lochtman discovered that most of these university students have a relatively conservative attitude to variation, attentive more to ‘correctness’ than to ‘appropriateness’. Indeed, it is typical that the students agree with Sick’s prescriptive attitude but are unable fully to appreciate his humour. Lochtman is aware that classroom practices explain learners’ conservative attitudes, and reflects on methods that might teach not only language norms but ‘sociolinguistic and intercultural competence in GFL teaching’.

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition The chapters in Part 2 explore some traditions of prescription, and some 19th-century developments in detail. Some chapters will draw on corpora to chart prescript and practice and the relation (or not) between them: as Klöter’s chapter has demonstrated, even a politically powerful state cannot control all aspects of language standardisation. Each country’s language has its own history of standardisation, as Smakman and Barasa observe in their chapter in Part 1. Do differences in sociocultural context produce different ways of implementing prescriptivism? And (how) can electronic corpora of both prescript and usage allow scholars to assess the impact of prescriptions across time? By way of beginning Part 2’s attention to Prescription and Tradition in Language, Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade present ‘Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England’. The authors take as their starting point the stereotypical difference between French and British prescriptivism: ‘official and legislative action’ in France as opposed to private initiatives in England. The process began a century earlier in France, and to some extent its centralisation reflects the absolute monarchy of the 17th century; England, in contrast, was associated with political liberty after the execution of Charles I and the exile of James II. But this chapter emphasises linguistic commonalities as well as contrasts: French reference works served as

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

7

inspiration for English ones, and indeed the rise of usage guides (along with other reference works) reflects increasing social mobility in both countries. Through the 19th century, the rise of mass education further emphasised the vernacular and the need for codifying it, whether from above or from below. Language norms are promoted in both French and British media; indeed, Tieken-Boon van Ostade observes that as the state broadcaster, the BBC is perceived as a semi-official academy of language. However, linguistic variation in public language reveals the limitations of prescriptivism, while both old and new media provide prescriptive platforms for enterprising individuals and institutions. Many of our chapters confirm the importance of print media as promoters of the cultural-linguistic nationalism so characteristic of 19th-century Europe, while others illustrate the role of literary authors in the history of the tradition, especially as exemplars in reference books. Rita Queiroz de Barros explores the intersection of these issues in ‘“A Higher Standard of Correctness than is Quite Desirable”: Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals’. As an author, Dickens (1812−1870) represented language variation in his novels and thereby covertly promoted a complex ideology of language standards. As the editor of literary journals in the 1850s and 1860s, Dickens publicised the linguistic opinions of a range of other anonymous authors. Some of the reviews remind us that prescriptivism is not monolithic: one reviewer concluded that a linguistic etiquette book promotes ‘a higher standard of correctness than is quite desirable’; another did not object to slang when confined to its place. But the cultural nationalism of 19th-century England is also evident in other essayists’ desires for more widespread study of English in schools and for a new dictionary, eventually met by the historically oriented Oxford English Dictionary. Some intersecting trends link an anxiety about novelty with an interest in history: classical loanwords are contrasted to the idealised purity of native vocabulary. It is typical of the Victorian period that older English is idealised: while in his fiction Dickens played with American speech, the essayists in the journals of which he was the editor condescended to it along with what one of them terms ‘Canton-English’. Variation in English is evident across and also within borders: historical and geographical realities undermine attempts to forge one-to-one correlations between language norms and nation. What happens to language norms when political boundaries shift? Dutch had been spoken in separate territories that were temporarily reunited in the 19th century. But although the northern and southern Low Countries had been and were once more to become politically distinct, an historical corpus study shows how – and suggests why – one prescriptive text exaggerated some linguistic differences between northern and southern norms. Gijsbert Rutten and Rik Vosters account for these in ‘Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Competing Language Norms in the Southern

8

Introduction

Low Countries (1815−1830)’ as resulting from the temporary political reunion of the northern and southern Low Countries under King William I (1772−1843). Southern Dutch had distinct traditions: separated from the north since the late 16th century and part of the French empire, the south had more native speakers of the French language, as well as a variety of Dutch with spelling conventions different from the north. During the brief period of political unification, differences between southern and northern Dutch were catalogued in order to promote the latter as the sole official language of the new (but short-lived) nation. Rutten and Vosters select some of the supposedly prototypical norms codified by Joseph Bernard Cannaert (1768−1848) in 1823, and compare these with forms in a corpus of official prose, counting frequencies in 1823 and in 1829. Their project reveals not only the variation to be expected in any texts but also, and especially, the rarity in real southern texts of supposedly southern Dutch forms. Concluding that the formal register of southern Dutch was already being influenced by the norms of the north, Rutten and Vosters infer that Cannaert exaggerated its non-standard features in order to denigrate the condition of Dutch in the more French-dominated south and thus to attract buyers for his book and speakers of northern norms. In addition to contextualising ideologies of language standards, their historical corpus study also helps to track the influence of prescriptivism across variants and over time. Another chapter in Part 2 makes a similar contrast between idealised norms and actual usage in historical corpora. The imagined purity of the historical vernacular haunts the prescriptive traditions of Icelandic in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In ‘The Syntax of Others: “Un-Icelandic” Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic’, Heimir van der Feest Viðarsson shows how cultural nationalism caused Icelanders not only to reject a syntactic variant as part of the emerging standard but also to ignore its existence to begin with. Viðarsson studies the variable of verb negation, and focuses on a variant (termed V3) stigmatised as foreign – supposedly imitated from Latin, German or Danish by 17th-century scholars, and absent from Icelandic’s Old Norse ancestor and from the authentic speech of rural Icelanders. Viðarsson surveys a corpus of personal letters, newspapers and examination papers and by viewing language use both ‘from below’ and ‘from above’ makes several interesting and interrelated discoveries. The seemingly foreign variant had been well-established in 19th-century Icelandic – and not only in the more formal writing of more ‘educated’ men. Moreover, because V3 then receded from 19th-century writing more slowly than expected, Viðarsson concludes that its first critic in the 1840s was less influential than supposed in shaping patriotic standards of Icelandic. Viðarsson’s attention to the correction of student writing is particularly interesting; there was only one secondary school in Iceland at the time,

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

9

and the practices of its teachers can be tracked. The impact of teachers on students’ language is a secret potentially revealed by opening ‘the “black box” of historical pedagogy’. The concluding chapter of Part 2 ties many of these threads together. How different prescriptive mechanisms might achieve the standardising aims of 19th-century nationalism is considered in the concluding chapter, Dominik Banhold’s ‘School Grammars and Language Guides: Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century’. Banhold contrasts the content of some representative school grammars published in the early 20th century with the three usage guides most used in that period, as well as with his survey of earlier school grammars. According to Banhold, the early 20th-century school grammars appear relatively tolerant of variation. Their prefaces link historical and geographical variation in German to the history of the language and people, and in comparison to usage guides their evaluative language (in titles, headers and body of the text) is in general more objective and less negative about linguistic variation. But – Banhold argues – school grammars still prescribe by exclusion: certain variants stigmatised in usage guides are excluded from school grammars entirely. And despite or perhaps even because of the range of evaluations used, the usage manuals published somewhat earlier and used for rather longer might perhaps have been more useful for users – they have more specificity about dialects and more variety about style. Indeed, Banhold ultimately attributes the relative tolerance of 20th-century school grammars to the success of the 19th-century standardisation process.

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition While broad cross-cultural surveys characterise the chapters in Part 2, Part 3 brings depth and complexity with its focus on the possibly bestestablished prescriptive traditions of English-language usage guides. One recurring figure is Henry Fowler (1858−1933), a steady contributor to Oxford’s Clarendon Press initially with his brother Francis (1871−1918) and later as the author of A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926). A more modern representative of the American side of the tradition is the lawyer-lexicographer Bryan Garner (b. 1958), whose Dictionary of Modern American Usage was first published in 1998 by Oxford University Press. Oxford continues to publish editions of Fowler as well as Garner: the image of the authoritative individual scholar remains a valuable cultural commodity. Oxford and other publishers also rely on and feature electronic corpora as objective and authoritative guides to usage. Our contributors to Part 3 collectively explore how the English language prescriptive tradition accommodates past and present, individual versus empirical judgement,

10

Introduction

common and arcane forms and a range of perspectives – popular, scholarly and ‘traditionalist’. How and why do professional and popular perspectives on usage differ? Characteristic of Part 3’s attention to grammar and usage guides of English is Robin Straaijer’s chapter, ‘A Perspective on Prescriptivism: Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage’. Straaijer takes as his starting point the third edition of Fowler, published in 1996 by New Zealand-born Robert Burchfield (1923−2004). By isolating strands of rhetoric in his corpus of academic and popular reviews of the text, Straaijer has revealed some ruptures in the modern tradition of usage guides. Many tensions are to be expected. Most reviewers explicitly contrasted Burchfield with Fowler, a few arguing that the texts shouldn’t be compared at all. In general, reviewers characterise Burchfield’s approach to usage more descriptive than Fowler’s; Burchfield had trained at Oxford as a philologist before editing the Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (1957−1986), and Burchfield’s Fowler is to some extent represented as a more historical, more objective, more systematic ‘replacement’ of Fowler. Straaijer’s survey curiously complicates the stereotype of political liberals as more linguistically descriptive: negative reviews appeared in some left-wing media. But the ‘descriptive linguist’ has a clear profile in this chapter: while most academic reviewers regarded Burchfield’s descriptive approach positively, Burchfield is criticised specifically as a linguist in a few newspaper reviews. The recurring sense in negative reviews of The New Fowler’s as a ‘betrayal’ or ‘usurpation’ and of Burchfield as ‘permissive’ emphasises the retention of Fowler’s name by Oxford University Press and the continuing importance of ‘Fowler’ and what he stands for in what remains an essentially prescriptivist tradition. Burchfield does seem to have updated Fowler by removing entries that are less common in modern language use; in another chapter in Part 3, Mark Kaunisto compares entries in usage guides with their frequency in everyday language as represented by the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Corpora of various kinds are increasingly available to publishers and authors, and offer the promise of a more objective approach to usage, as, indeed, Peters (2006: 765) argues to be one of the more – positive – recent developments in the usage guide tradition. Guides by Bryan Garner (Oxford University Press) and Pam Peters (Cambridge University Press) are among those that explicitly draw on corpora. But to what extent are entries in these guides representative of usage more generally? Kaunisto contrasts the frequency of items in 10 usage guides and in 2 large national corpora in ‘Which Items Need to be Standardised? Variation in the Choice of Entries in Usage Guides’. Kaunisto focuses on word pairs sharing a root but with different suffixes, and as discussed by mostly modern usage guides (including such potentially influential predecessors as Fowler, 1926). In order to establish

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

11

meaningful sorts of frequencies, he includes pairs of both common (e.g. classic and classical) and uncommon (e.g. congratulative and congratulatory) words, as well as pairs containing a high (speculative) and low frequency (speculatory) word. Overall, Kaunisto correlates the number of entries in usage guides with the frequency in corpora of items in question: the shortest guides contain high-frequency entries and the longest guides rarer ones. Garner’s guide is the longest of all those examined and contains the most unique entries: moreover, almost all his entries for -ive/ory appear in no other usage guides and were found to occur infrequently or not at all in the corpora examined. To some extent, the rare words in Garner reflect the legal database he draws on (he is a lawyer by profession) and of course the large size of his guide, as well as his stated aim to proscribe unnecessary variants – although without regard (as Kaunisto observes) to ‘whether or not [his entries] reflect actual usage’. Indeed, some pairs fairly common in the corpora are absent from Garner. Is Garner the descriptive prescriptivist he claims to be? Garner consulted the databases Westlaw and LexisNexis for his work as well as a small and heterogeneous panel of experts before rating variants on a five-point scale of language change. In ‘“Garnering” Respect? The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition’, Matthijs Smits compares Garner’s ratings of variants with their distribution in diachronic (COHA: the Corpus of Historical American English) and contemporary corpora of American English (COCA). Smits selected variants for his analysis that reflect a variety of usage issues: the preterite snuck; prepositions than and to with different; and hopefully as a sentence adverb. Smits assesses the historical and current acceptability of these variants by drawing on scholarly studies and by measuring their distribution in COHA and COCA. Useful as an index are the diachronic data from COHA, suggesting an increase generally of snuck (as against sneaked) and different than (compared to different to) and sentence adverb hopefully. A particularly interesting index is a variant’s relatively high or low frequency in newspaper contexts: we might infer the acceptability of hopefully as a sentence adverb (and the more dubious status of snuck and that of different than) in this genre that has been traditionally copy-edited according to a style sheet. From the increasing frequency of hopefully and its notably high frequency in the newspaper category of corpora, Smits supports Garner’s acknowledgement that the form is ‘now a part of AmE’ despite being condemned by some readers. If variants like hopefully or different than are relatively well established in educated public usage, why do prescriptions against them persist? Don Chapman addresses this question in ‘Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How “Traditional Rules” are Traditional’. He is particularly interested in the existence and persistence of proscriptions ‘whose general applicability is questionable’ since the variants are nevertheless common in educated English. Chapman observes that such rules are often deemed ‘traditional’,

12

Introduction

and argues that the term is ‘reserved for when usage writers need a way of explaining the issue without necessarily endorsing the rule’. These shibboleths have a number of functions: they distinguish the ‘stalwarts’ or ‘purists’ who observe them, identifying or even creating a community of those who value and are valued for ‘following the rules’. Moreover, the tradition of learning and observing the rules simultaneously naturalises and valorises those rules, for reasons independent of the clarity or elegance traditionally attributed to them. Chapman’s chapter anatomises how the dynamics of the prescriptive tradition validate both ‘some readers’ and the rules they are invested in.

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges To what extent are prescriptive traditions affected by such contemporary political and commercial developments as transnational flows and new technologies? New media feature in a number of the chapters in this section. While new media often contribute to the rising status of such languages as Basque, Frisian and Macedonian, they also reveal the existence of variation and thus the perceived need for standardisation. New media are also a new medium for public idealisation of the old order. For instance, in ‘“Goodbye, Sweet England”: Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media’, Martin Gill surveys journalists’ news stories about language variation and also readers’ online comments on those stories. Because these stories idealise correct English and normative Britishness in the public sphere, they both naturalise and authorise ethnolinguistic nationalism in response to the social realities of immigration. The English language is an index for a nation perceived to be under threat: while journalists celebrate the revival of minority languages like Manx and thus the old order more generally, the non-standard grammar and pronunciation of Middlesbrough schoolchildren and the multilingualism of Muslim Peterborough schoolchildren are reported with more anxiety. Gill observes that linguists’ expert perspectives on language variation are under-represented by British journalists and are attacked by readers when they are. In so-called ‘old’ nations, new media can intensify symptoms of globalisation to reproduce a modern monocultural standard language ideology. Developments in technology and science seem to intensify the domination of English on the vocabulary of other languages. And the very existence of neologisms let alone their influence by English poses a particular challenge to the puristic and monocultural language ideology in France. In ‘Prescription and Tradition: From the French Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process (1996−2014)’, Danielle Candel focuses on the 18 specialist Committees for Terminology and Neology that advise both the General Delegation for the French

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

13

language that manages them, and the French Academy. Candel documents their members’ efforts to devise and to prescribe French terminology for official state use, often to replace recent English neologisms in such fields as ‘Computer Science and Electronic Communication’ and ‘Defence’. As indicated by Candel, who is herself a member of several of these committees, their practice is not quite consistent across fields: English terms like golf have become somewhat more acceptable in the field of Sports than, for example, aerospace. Moreover, since 1996, the committees’ decisions have had to be witnessed by the French Academy, who has ultimately very similar but traditionally more conservative and generalist perspectives than the individual committees. Indeed, Candel documents a few cases where the committees seem to anticipate the Academy’s disapproval by rejecting terms that the Academy has already approved. Finally, although terms recommended by the specialist committees and approved by the Academy are ultimately published in the government’s Journal officiel and prescribed for official use, they are merely recommended to the general public, and not exactly aimed at specialists. Despite the top-down processes that are traditional in France, Candel concludes by observing that in French specialist publications individual experts are collectively devising a ‘lexicographical style’ suggesting ‘prescriptive ways of (re)naming and defining important concepts’. English loanwords are also among the ‘Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian’ surveyed and historically contextualised by Arto Mustajoki. The transmission (or not) of prescriptive traditions for Russian has been further complicated by the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and by new (and older) media. As in other countries, in the Russian mass media non-standard language appears prominent; colloquial, taboo and foreign words differ dramatically from the codified Russian of past great writers and especially from the highly regulated public language of the Soviet era and the language of the literary intelligentsia. As in Britain, the media are also the site for public discussions about the state of the language. Such debates in the 1990s led to legal measures: these included a law from 2003 directed against both borrowed and ‘bad’ words, and one from 2005 on Russian as the state language, which granted several other languages local status but entrenched Russian as the only official language in the country. Key developments included the designation of a state institution as the official source of norms, and (after some disruption) the Ministry of Education’s sponsorship of four authoritative dictionaries; Russian and its norms are also promoted by the Russki Mir ‘Russian world’ foundation, supported by private as well as public funds, and by television and radio shows. How effective are these authorities and norms? Even during the Soviet period, Mustajoki argues, ‘a certain degree of polyphony’ characterised

14

Introduction

the codification of Russian by a variety of individuals and institutions. And Mustajoki demonstrates that the state-sponsored reference works are less prescriptive than their predecessors in acknowledging variation in word stress and grammatical gender. To what extent can both new media and these codified norms influence Russian beyond Russia? Although the dissolution of the Soviet Union has changed the contexts and sometimes the status of Russian, the language remains an important lingua franca. Beyond Russia, the Russian language has also changed in status and increased in variety. It has lost its official status in the former republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Nevertheless, Russian retains an official status alongside local languages in Belarus, Dagestan and Kazakhstan, for instance. Mustajoki observes that speakers of Russian in all these areas still have some access to the Russian media and perhaps undergo influence from them. However, in countries where official documents must be written in Russian, scholars have documented deviations from the Russian used in Moscow, even in Belarus where contact is close with Russia. Even more variation has arisen in ethnically diverse Dagestan, a republic of contemporary Russia where Russian is not only the primary official language but also the lingua franca among diverse ethnic groups. As Mustajoki summarises, ‘practical communicative functions outweigh any normative restrictions’ for this important tool of communication. In contrast, the liberation of more demographically homogeneous republics has led to linguistic prescriptivism arising from ethnic nationalism. In ‘Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology’, Loreta Vaicekauskienė classifies Lithuania as among newly (re)formed nation states in which motivations for standardisation are very much ‘romantic’ – concerned perhaps less with the practicalities of national communication than with anxieties about the viability of the ethnic state. Lithuania was made subject to the Russian Empire in the 19th century as well as the Soviet federation in the 20th century. While acknowledging that prescriptivism is a typical concern in such nations recently subjected to political and linguistic domination and only lately able to establish norms, Vaicekauskienė argues that Lithuania is nevertheless ‘exceptional’ for what she calls the ‘cult-like propaganda of language correctness’ supported by law and by academic linguists, who act not only to establish norms but to enforce them in a remarkably bureaucratic process. Vaicekauskienė argues that the current system of prescriptivism is rooted in Soviet-era practices linking language control with political power, and that the involvement of scholars gives them official authority. She draws an analogy between the romantic nationalist idea of a perfect language constructed by linguists and language cultivation that manipulate scholarly arguments to justify social engineering and institutional regulation of citizens.

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

15

The dissolution of federations and empires affects the contexts and status of majority and minority languages. In the present Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian is now a majority language. But speakers of Macedonian recall a long period of subordination: in the Ottoman Empire, Macedonian had been a minority language; after the empire was divided among Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria in 1913 the language remained subordinate; and in former Yugoslavia, despite its new status as one of the official languages, Macedonian was effectively subordinate to SerboCroatian. Macedonia’s independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 improved the status not only of Macedonian but also of Albanian, speakers of which are the largest ethnic minority in the republic. Aleksandra Gjurkova considers the linguistic consequences of these political changes in ‘Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia’. She surveys some of the status planning and corpus planning processes for Macedonian, with laws, publications and examination committees being instituted to improve the language and its speakers. Gjurkova also analyses the efforts of the Macedonian state to accommodate minority languages like Albanian, and considers the impact of these attempts in turn on Macedonian. Albanian may now be used in administrative communication and on public signs in municipalities where 20% of the citizens use that language: the absence of Macedonian from some public signs is underscored by the contrast in fonts between Roman Albanian and Cyrillic script. Gjurkova concludes her chapter by considering the status of Macedonian in Europe more broadly. The Macedonian language would be further protected should the country’s status change from that of candidate to member state of the European Union. And as a minority language outside Macedonia, the language should benefit from additional European Union (EU) countries ratifying the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Macedonian is now ‘protected as a territorial language’ in Romania, where that charter was ratified, although it has no official status in Bulgaria or Greece – all of these member states of the EU. Language policy remains a national matter, but the EU is an important broader context for the status and standardisation of minority languages. Finally, what distinctive prescriptive issues are arising with the relatively recent standardisation of minority languages themselves? And how are these issues inflected by such factors as the number of nations and majority languages? Two chapters focus on ongoing codification of minority languages in much older states – Frisian spelling in the province of The Netherlands and Basque pronunciation in France and Spain. Both chapters emphasise the role of the media and focus on the relationship not only of speech to writing but especially of dialects to standards of the official languages as well as to the emerging standards of Frisian and Basque.

16

Introduction

The Frisian language has official status in the Dutch province of Friesland, and in 2013 the provincial council commissioned the standardised word list of Frisian that has been available online since early 2015. Pieter Duijff gives an historical context for this word list in ‘The Standardisation Process of Frisian: A Word List as a Result’. Like many minority languages, Frisian does not have a continuous written tradition. Duijff provides an historical explanation for variation in modern spelling, explaining how Frisian writing was principally influenced by a 17th-century poet and by later writers from the Clay region. The great variation in written Frisian also reflects dialects that are mutually intelligible but phonologically distinct, in addition to 19th-century neologisms that were unsystematically inspired by Old Frisian, earlier literature and present-day speech. How can a modern standard be crafted from such great variation? From these forms, the Fryske Akademy ‘Frisian Academy’ has selected norms that reflect the frequency of forms as well as the traditional literary prominence of the Clay dialect. Spellings are also chosen that differ from Dutch, the main (and related) language in The Netherlands. Although cultural nationalism is facilitating the relatively recent standardisation of Basque, the standardisation of formal pronunciation is still underway. And as with Frisian spelling, the Basque Academy marginalises features from the majority languages of Spanish and French as they codify spoken norms. Interference arises not simply from the native language of some of Basque’s always bilingual speakers but also from some speakers avoiding what they feel to be the inevitable colloquialism of unstandardised Basque dialect forms. To avoid informality, the standard is principally spelling pronunciation, while dialect forms are among the strategies adopted for use in more colloquial registers. Miren Lourdes Oñederra explains the challenges not only in constructing formal norms for the spoken language but also and especially in equitably choosing dialect forms to create a sociolinguistic continuum in ‘The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today, between Maintenance and Variation’. Even spelling pronunciation is not a clear guide, she argues, as native speakers of French, Spanish and different Basque dialects will pronounce the same grapheme differently. And because Basque is not only a second language but a formally acquired language for many, teaching speech along a sociolinguistic continuum that is itself artificially constructed poses special challenges. Acknowledging this difficulty, the current pronunciation committee, of which Oñederra is a member, is being advised on classroom strategies by not only teachers and phonologists but also an acting coach. Oñederra concludes her chapter by reflecting on the tension between ‘purposefully plann[ing]’ variation and allowing ‘orderly functional variation’ to arise with the usual freedom and spontaneity.

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

17

Concluding Remarks In order to round off this Introduction, we would like to highlight some of the main topics identified here that are discussed at much greater length in the chapters that follow. The chapters in Part 1 remind us of the extent to which all language communities are characterised by multilingualism. This stands in stark contrast with what many policymakers in Western countries today believe to be the case and wish to see implemented as an ideal situation. Some of the countries discussed in the chapters demonstrate the absence of a one-to-one correspondence between standard language and nation but also and especially the ways in which the concept of a ‘standard’ must be broken down. As Smakman and Barasa observe, some languages might have the communicative function and even the commercial power of a prototypically Western ‘standard’ despite being uncodified and oral. And the teaching of standards in classrooms is not always to native speakers living within the boundary of specific nations: Lochtman’s survey reminds us that native speakers as well as learners of foreign languages may inappropriately prioritise simple correctness over social appropriateness. As a consequence of 19th-century European histories, language standards are often associated with the history of a nation, but the chapters in this section have shown that the actual state of affairs, especially today, is far more complicated than that. All the historical chapters in Part 2 have assessed connections between 19th-century ideas of the nation and its history and attempts to prescribe corresponding linguistic norms. While in some countries such attempts have traditionally operated from above through an officially appointed academy or through the educational system, in others prescription has a basis in the attempts of individuals, as writers of usage guides (and grammars before the rise of this new genre), as journal editors sanctioning prescriptive publications and as individuals devising a linguistic norm themselves. As for the chapters in Part 3, all of them attest to the importance of large structured electronic corpora for investigating the methods as well as the effectiveness of prescriptivism in English. Using corpora, authors as well as publishers have made claims for the accuracy and utility of their usage guides. And using corpora, our own contributors have analysed the reception of prescriptive texts as well as the extent to which labels and headwords in prescriptive texts do or do not correspond with English as it was and is used. Part 3 demonstrates how professional academics add rigour to the English prescriptive tradition, as authors of usage guides and as scholars. This section also incidentally illustrates the influence of private institutions in the prescriptive tradition of English: Oxford University Press was (and is) the publisher of Garner in the United States as well as of Fowler (or ‘Fowler’), and its current role in the field of English

18

Introduction

language prescription is confirmed by the publication as recently as in the spring of 2015 of a fourth edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Butterfield, 2015). The persistent profitability and popularity of ‘Fowler’ underscores the importance of the idea of tradition – even and especially in modern times. The chapters in Part 4 chart the challenges of establishing or maintaining linguistic norms in a changing political world. Dialects and languages never reflect national boundaries, especially when these are being crossed and redrawn. Formal and informal norms for Russian and Macedonian are changing both within and beyond national borders. And new and old media intensify public anxiety by reporting and by revealing linguistic variation. Idealised linguistic traditions are evident in old(er) nations like England, where the presence of the most recent immigrants provokes a probably false nostalgia for endangered languages like Manx and provincial dialects unmarked for class. In post-Soviet Russia, the preSoviet traditions of Peter the Great (1672−1725) and literary figures like Alexander Pushkin (1799−1837) seem threatened by the prominence in new media of loanwords from English and of ‘bad’ words from ordinary Russians. While new language laws have been implemented in post-Soviet Russia, linguistic prescriptivism seems particularly intense in the newly formed or reformed nations of Macedonia and especially Lithuania, where previous traditions of political oppression have not been forgotten by speakers of what are now majority languages. In Lithuania, new norms are often constructed rather than selected, ‘traditional’ in their imposition rather than in their use. Such traditions of prescriptivism inherited and developed from the Soviet era continue a culture linking linguistic to civic ‘cultivation’. In more demographically heterogeneous Macedonia, recognising minority languages like Albanian has accompanied the cultivation of the majority language. Even outside the EU, the European Charter is an important context for the relatively recent standardisation of regional and minority languages. In older EU nations like The Netherlands and Spain, standardising minority languages has presented its own challenges. In the Dutch province of Friesland, the historical dominance of the traditional Clay dialect has to a certain extent resulted in its moderate over-representation in the standard Frisian spellings being determined by the Fryske Akademy. In Basque regions of Spain and France, features of traditional Basque dialects are candidates for colloquial norms, while spelling pronunciations form the formal norms of standardised Basque. The classroom remains an important site for the inevitably prescriptive transmission of standards. Teachers as well as linguists advise the Basque Academy: here teachers are thus involved in creating as well as passing on linguistic traditions. And in many of these contemporary contexts, academic linguists have played particularly important roles as language planners as well as professional and (somewhat) public critics.

Prescription and Tradition: Establishing Standards across Time and Space

19

There are many more aspects that concern the main topic of this volume – Prescription and Tradition in Language – than could be dealt with here despite the large number of chapters included, let alone many more languages than the ones discussed that would have yielded relevant information for a truly comprehensive discussion of the topic. A good example would be the work done by Tijmen Pronk on the development of the Croatian spelling system in the light of the turbulent history of this country as well as its spelling since the 14th century (Pronk, 2015), and others can be given too. One thing that does stand out as a result of the chapters presented below is that there is no single standardisation process, or indeed theory about linguistic standardisation, that could be considered universally or even widely applicable. It will also become clear that standardisation, whether the result of historical developments or as having been implemented more recently from above in the form of language planning efforts in the context of the rise of new nations, may not in effect be a straightforward process producing the kind of beneficial effects that language planners past or present might have hoped for. Even the notion of what a ‘standard’ language entails proves to differ depending on the linguistic perspective taken. If a single conclusion could be drawn, it would be that all these factors will have to be taken into account when the standardisation processes which single languages underwent are looked at. The chapters presented here are all from the hands of scholars that specialise in different areas of the standardisation processes affecting a large variety of languages. All these scholars are linguists, several of whom deal with languages in their chapters which they acquired, and which they are currently teaching, as non-native speakers. Some, moreover, have contributed to the standardisation of the languages they write about as language planners – as members of academies or as compilers of spelling dictionaries. While some of the authors look back on stages in the standardisation of a language’s more or less distant past, others deal with present-day variation and change and the question of how usage advice is presented and how usage advice has been received. One major role in particularly these latter aspects is the increasing availability of language corpora and databases (some of which were tailor-made for the studies presented below), modern as well as historical ones, on the basis of which pronouncements about linguistic correctness can be tested empirically. This collection thus offers insider and outsider views by specialists in the field on language norms and standardisation processes, operating from above or below, today or in the past and on the question of linguistic variation as well as change as dealt with in different national, historical and cultural contexts, at a time when not only the new media but also newly compiled digitised resources are playing a role that is historically unprecedented in many important respects.

20

Introduction

Note (1)

This point will be further elaborated on in Tieken-Boon van Ostade (in progress).

References Butterfield, J. (2015) Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, J. (2012) Foreword: Language, prescriptivism, nationalism – and identity. In C. Percy and M.C. Davidson (eds) The Languages of Nation: Attitudes and Norms (pp. 11−36). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Haugen, E. (1966) Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68, 922−35. Repr. in J.B. Pride/J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics (pp. 97−111). London: Penguin. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. ([1985] 2012) Authority in Language. Investigating Standard English (4th edn). London/New York: Routledge. Peters, P. (2006) English usage: Prescription and description. In B. Aarts and A. McMahon (eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics (pp. 759–780). Oxford: Blackwell. Pronk, T. (2015) From national revival to the orthographic war: Two centuries of Croatian spelling reform. 11th Bridging the Unbridgeable Lunch Lecture, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, 28 May 2015. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2012) Codifying the English language. In U. Busse, A. Schröder and R. Schenider (eds) Codification, Canons, and Curricula. Prescription and Description in Language and Literature (pp. 61–77). Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (in progress) English Usage Guides: The Biography of a Genre.

Part 1 General and Theoretical

2 Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm Dick Smakman and Sandra Nekesa Barasa

Standardness The standard language is generally considered a linguistic norm which a very large speech community overtly adheres to (Milroy, 1992: 3; Meyerhoff, 2011: 18). Standard languages are different from other varieties of the same language in that they tend to cover a larger area, are often codified and supported by governments and transcend some contactinduced influences (Thomason & Kaufman, 1988). Once they have emerged as standard and gone through a process of acceptance, they are mostly shaped through conscious efforts and are actively spread as an official norm, usually within a country (Smakman, 2012). Traditionally, standard languages can be found used as the linguistic medium in schoolbooks, in official documents, on national mainstream radio and television and, for instance, in official gatherings such as parliamentary sessions (Smakman, 2006). Standard languages tend to be highly visible in many societies. Despite this visibility, however, the standard language is an elusive phenomenon considering that the set of factors its definition depends on is unclear and debatable. Existing models on what a standard language is each take a different aspect of this language as its point of focus: features of the language itself (e.g. Stewart, 1968), position in society (how it is evaluated) (e.g. Hoenigswald, 1966), degree of codification (e.g. Stewart, 1968), characteristics of speakers (e.g. Kloeke, 1951) or, for instance, the historical developmental stages it has gone through, for which Haugen (1966) is usually drawn upon. Despite an inevitable degree of obscurity and multilayeredness, each of the above approaches to describing standard languages is workable if applied to monolingual language settings in politically and linguistically stable societies with a dialect continuum and a long-standing and uncontested standard language. This theoretical line of thought, however, does not work in countries in which diglossia and multilingualism are a rule 23

24

Part 1: General and Theoretical

rather than an exception. Mesthrie (2015: 82) explains how conditions taken for granted in Haugen’s model – such as writing as a widespread tool already present before the onset of standardisation as well as education and media systems to spread the standard language – do not apply in many colonised countries. He indicates how standard languages in an area such as southern Africa are nevertheless developing. Mainstream models do not work either when no historical dialects exist or the nation’s dominant language was imported, as in a country like New Zealand. Models describing language norms (like Haugen, 1966; Ferguson, [1968] 1996) have not managed to incorporate many such ‘deviant’ language settings which are in fact quite common. In many countries outside the European realm the language norm is not too visible, and even seems absent at first sight, while it nevertheless constitutes a very powerful undercurrent in how language variation is perceived and judged. This undercurrent often fails to flourish as it is hindered by several factors. This chapter lists a number of these underexposed factors and will contribute to fathoming the concept of standardness in language. It is in line with the increasingly heightened awareness that academics in the field have of Western approaches to global sociolinguistic issues, which is due to the relative overrepresentation of European and American linguistic publications in the sociolinguistic arena, as illustrated by Meyerhoff and Nagy (2008) and Smakman (2015). Coulmas (2011: 22) indicates that in spite of the universal nature of language variation, sociolinguistics is in the main a science that approaches concepts within a Western paradigm. Caution is required, he claims, when applying such preset ideas to non-Western societies. We concur with linguists like Coulmas, who suggest that existing models need elaboration and modification to fit the very different non-Western situations. We also acknowledge the questions raised regarding the bias in standardisation models by authors such as Lippi-Green (2012), Bex and Watts (1999), and Watts and Trudgill (2002) as well as awareness raised by publications such as those by Auer (2005) and Deumert and Vandenbussche (2003).

Traditional descriptions of standardness The standard language is most often viewed and defined through stages in its development. Such stages can, first of all, be described as part of a broader historical perspective of nation-state shaping (Migliorini, 1984; Chaurand, 1999). Another approach involving consecutive developmental stages is looking at the standardisation of the language itself (Haugen, 1966; Ferguson, [1968] 1996; Milroy & Milroy, [1985] 2012; Van der Wal & Van Bree, 2008). A more contemporary and synchronic approach to defining standard languages looks at the general qualities that the

Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm

25

language in question has developed, often including prototypical speakers (Jespersen, 1925; Kloeke, 1951; Stewart, 1968: 533−539; Smakman, 2006, 2012; Finegan, 2007: 14). One problem with the current standardness models is that while many Western countries tend to be basically monolingual, many of them nevertheless do not meet that monolingual norm, like Belgium and Switzerland. The current schemes thus do not even hold in these Western countries. Both the diachronic and synchronic approaches to defining the standard language suffer from the weakness that they take well-known, mostly European, languages as their point of departure. Fisher (1996: 65) and Subačius (2002) mention the lack of a discussion that points out similarities of standardisation in various European countries. It should be obvious that generalising outside this European context is even more challenging. Ethnologue (Lewis et al., 2013) informs us that while the population of western Europe is about 64% of that of western Africa, in western Europe there are approximately 50 living languages while there are 888 in western Africa. Similar figures can be produced for other areas, such as India and Pakistan, demonstrating the relatively low degree of linguistic diversity in Europe, the area the original standardness model is largely based on.

Standardness outside the Western realm Smakman (2012) attempted to present a broader view of the definition of the standard language by asking lay speakers from three Anglo-Western countries (the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand), two western European societies (The Netherlands and Flanders), one eastern European (Poland) and one Asian (Japan) country to give a description of the local standard language. Two seemingly paradoxical yet parallel views of the standard language emerged across continents, namely the view in which the standard is the elite language (the ‘exclusive’ standard language) and the interpretation of the standard language as a tool towards social and communicative cohesion (the ‘inclusive’ standard language). Although in Smakman’s (2006, 2012) research the way that standard languages were viewed in various countries showed many similarities (standard languages were generally regarded as a neutral communication tool, a lingua franca), the research mostly revealed that differences in interpretation at more specific levels are considerable. The countries had in common that they were either Western or Westernising, which made the results difficult to interpret. Also, the seven countries investigated all scored high on the Human Development Index (HDI), as set up by the United Nations Development Programme,1 and each of them was

26

Part 1: General and Theoretical

predominantly monolingual. The present investigation calls for a more in-depth look at this issue – especially one which includes non-Western and multilingual countries – and this is what we intend to do here.

Multilingualism Factors that are not in existing paradigms relating to the discussion of the nature of standard languages are likely to be directly or indirectly related to multilingualism. The Anglo-Western view of multilingualism is one that presumes the existence of a dominant language, which is the national language in most cases, and of ‘other’ languages, rather than languages with overlapping status existing side by side. Although individual and speech community multilingualism is indubitable within Anglo-Western countries, the majority of societies in these parts of the world are predominantly monolingual. In such settings, the nation states tend to have one highly dominant national language and the speakers within each state are taught this language at school and often use it on a daily basis. This is not only true in countries like Germany, Spain and the UK but also in the USA, where there is an undisputed national language which the society has adopted as the dominant language norm. Speakers tend to commonly use this dominant language as the unmarked choice (cf. Myers-Scotton, 1993: 12) in many contexts. Monolingualism is the dominant norm for many in these countries, and major world languages, like English or Spanish, are learned as second languages (L2s) in such countries and are not naturally acquired. Dialects are alive but usually restricted to specific domains. The mainly monolingual status of many European countries and their interconnected linguistic histories has registered many similarities in the development and shape of their standard languages. This parallelism has encouraged generalisations of issues associated with standardness. But, as Meyerhoff and Nagy (2008: 14) advise, ‘the world’s multilingual speakers should be as much a part of linguistic theory and practice as their more closely-scrutinised monolingual cousins’. When it comes to language norms, multilingual communities in such non-Western countries receive relatively little attention, possibly because such norms are less visible in more linguistically complex societies or because standardisation seems ‘unfinished’ from a European perspective and does not adopt the shape of one dominant language with a written and a spoken standard. Outside the countries in the Western realm, which more often than not have an obvious and undisputed standard (national) language, there are communities and countries where such an obvious candidate is absent. In multilingual regions like East Africa (e.g. Kenya) and parts of SouthEast Asia (e.g. Singapore), standardisation processes have not always led to single undisputed dominant standard languages in which all typical

Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm

27

standard language functions come together (see also Ameka, this volume). The absence of a specific standard language candidate is in fact quite common in non-Western regions due to a multilingual situation where more than one language is dominant, either top-down (officially) or bottom-up (culturally).

Effects of colonialism Colonisation by European forces in the 16th to 19th centuries played a major role in introducing official languages – most notably English, French, Portuguese and Spanish – in countries which were already linguistically complex. Most of the colonies were linguistically unchartered, and did not have an official language in place. The rise of official languages was often based on the influence of missionaries (through sermons, printed documents such as Bible translations and through dictionaries compiled in aid of communication with the native population), not the economic dominance of a certain urbanised centre. Given the existing bilingual or multilingual settings of many colonies, these official languages (in the adapted form they took on over the centuries) were placed in the ‘Outer Circle’ in Kachru’s (1992) categorisation of Englishes. The Outer Circle consists of countries where, although English is not the first language (L1) of the majority of the speakers, that language is accorded the status of an official language. Currently, former colonial languages such as English usually still enjoy the status of ‘official’ languages, which is more or less synonymous with ‘standard’ languages. An example is the maintenance of the model status of received pronunciation (RP) English in Nigeria (Olajide & Olaniyi, 2013). The postcolonial era enabled a number of colonies to elevate indigenous lingua francas to a similar status as the former colonial language. This resulted in the standardisation of indigenous national languages resulting in a symbiotic relationship with the existing former official colonial language. Most African and some Asian countries – e.g. Kenya (English and Swahili), Uganda (English, Luganda and Swahili) and India (Hindi and English) – fall into this category as having more than one standard language with a national or official status (cf. Ameka, this volume). Another complex scenario that is hardly accommodated by existing theories is the existence of two related (through contact) standard languages, for example a former colonial language together with a creole language. A case in point is Jamaica in the Caribbean where English was introduced through colonisation. The language developed over time and came to be recognised as Standard Jamaican English, which is used as the official language or H-language (acrolect) on the island. Cassidy (1971: 204) describes the language as being used by ‘the urbanized, educated, professional or upper business type’ (see also Schneider, 1990; Mufwene,

28

Part 1: General and Theoretical

2000; Roberge, 2011). Allsopp (1996: lvi) defines Standard Caribbean English or Caribbean Standard English (SCE) as ‘[t]he literate English of educated nationals of Caribbean territories and their spoken English such as is considered natural in formal social contexts’. Today, SCE still operates as the only official language, the language of education and of government administration in Jamaica (Devonish & Walters, 2015). But alongside this, there exists a Jamaican creole which is lexified by English. This creole started as a pidgin lingua franca among slaves of different linguistic origins and between the slaves and their colonisers (Devonish, 2003). It developed into a fully fledged creole (Jamaican patois) with basilect, mesolect (both H- and L-mesolects) and acrolect varieties. According to the creole continuum model developed by DeCamp (1971), the L-mesolect is closer to the basilect while the H-mesolect is closer to the acrolect. The patois H-mesolect is used alongside English in a number of contexts. According to Morren and Morren (2007: 3), the general accession of the patois makes it difficult to separate the two. Although the patois is spoken by the majority of the population, and thus has the status of a lingua franca, it is still in the process of codification and therefore not yet fully standardised. (This situation is unlike that in a European country like The Netherlands, where speaking and writing one and the same standardised, widely intelligible language in daily discourse is the default practice among many educated speakers, whereas applying several languages or mutually highly different varieties depending on social formality context is less common.) Haugen’s model, among others, does not cater for such parallel standards in former colonies.

The existence of a nativised standard De Vries et al. (1993: 129) remind us that culture is one of the main forces in the development of a standard language. Nevertheless, lesser known cultural effects of the standard language are yet to be taken into consideration in standardisation models. Due to cultural influence, most official languages in former colonies are currently not as they were when they were first introduced. They have since been enculturated into nativised varieties. Kachru (1976) was one of the first linguists to assign status to newer varieties of English by referring to a process of nativisation that such varieties were undergoing (see also Meyerhoff, 2011: 258−259; Smith, 1983; Banda, 1996), arguing that English in certain contexts is adapted by speakers so as to accommodate local meanings and habits and generally the cultural and linguistic needs of the local community. In standardisation models, it seems that such new types of Englishes, which are commonly used in formal and professional settings and which are increasingly becoming the native tongues of new generations of speakers, are treated

Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm

29

with some hesitation despite their nationally standardised status. Models that acknowledge these English varieties, e.g. Kachru’s (1992) Concentric Circle model, tend to marginalise them by placing them either in the Outer or the Extended Circle. Indigenised language varieties are not considered as serious candidates for standardisation by any well-known standardisation model. The majority of post-independence African literature in regional Englishes exemplifies the importance of culture by using English with indigenised features in an attempt to adapt it to the national culture, i.e. to make it ‘culture friendly’. Examples of African writers who use indigenised varieties of English include the late Chinua Achebe, Gabriel jibaba Okara, Amos Tutuola and Ken Saro-Wiwa. Rees (2005: 66) explains that these writers are not keen to write in official English as such, preferring an English form and style ‘with its idiosyncrasies of regional and specific sociohistoric features’. In line with this, survey results among black teachers from the southern African region reveal that a majority of them accept features of black South African English as standard (see Gough, 1996; Van der Walt & Van Rooy, 2002). This trend has evolved in African media today, for example in the Kenya Television Network (KTN), which runs programmes spiced with indigenised Englishes and code-switching in multilingual settings, which underscores their entrance into what is traditionally the standard-language domain. Even so, these media houses air news programmes and bulletins in a single language without any codeswitching, perhaps as an indication of an awareness of certain restrictions in the appliance of code-switched and non-code-switched norms or of overly nativised uses. This scenario is shared by former English colonies in African and Asian countries such as India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Tanzania, Zambia, Ghana, Uganda and Kenya. In these countries, the official language is supposedly British English (the standard variety that is used as the primary language in many countries of former colonisers), with the Outer Circle English (the variety that is spoken in many former colonies as an L2, next to their arterial language(s), L1) increasingly establishing itself as the national standard-like variety. This process of nativisation should be accounted for in standardisation theories.

Absence of an ‘exclusive’ interpretation of the standard language Europeans, among others, tend to have two interpretations of the standard language. The language can be socially or linguistically cohesive (the ‘inclusive’ standard language interpretation) but it may also have an air of social distinctiveness (‘exclusive’). Outside Europe, this distinction may not be relevant. In many of these countries, standardisation may

30

Part 1: General and Theoretical

mainly or only have a communicatively and socially cohesive function and not be used as a distinctive means in daily communication. Bourdieu (1991) describes how language can be a means to exercise social control and how guarding a language may lead to it being used as social capital and a gateway to power – both symbolic and actual – and prestige. In taking this view, he seems to be referring to the exclusive function of the standard language, meaning that it may function to denote membership of an elite. Bourdieu’s model will thus not apply to countries that do not have a tradition of such an exclusivist use of the standard. In some cases, the colonial language may fulfil this function, but this language may be said to fulfil mainly, or only, the exclusive function and not have a socially cohesive function. The two functions, then, are not represented in one and the same language. Similarly, in countries like Australia, New Zealand and the USA, the notion of exclusiveness may not work either. Smakman’s (2012) investigation revealed that all seven societies that he studied shared the concept of inclusiveness as a standard language function. The United States and New Zealand, as former English colonies, however, do not appear to have a living prestigious, ‘exclusive’ variety. New Zealand laymen even suggested that English from England may fulfil this role, but only symbolically. Exclusiveness may be absent altogether in some societies, and the presence of exclusiveness may in turn depend on the presence of an ‘old’ social and linguistic continuum.

New Approaches to the Linguistic Norm The above-mentioned factors (effects of colonialism, the nativised standard and absence of an ‘exclusive’ standard), as well as the important factor of multilingualism, inspire new ways of viewing the standard language. Certain requirements that are sometimes assumed could be ignored, the most important being coalesced societal and linguistic continua ranging from the highly prestigious H-language all the way to the informal spoken language. All this warrants looking at the standard language differently and revisiting certain perspectives. The following suggestions could be made to come to a revised definition: separate the functions of the standard language, distinguish between the spoken and written standard, treat the ‘code-switched’ variety as a possible standard and detach ‘standard’ from prestige and power. These are discussed next.

Separate the functions of the standard language Smakman’s (2006; 2012) findings show that monolingual countries do not face the complexities of determining a standard language based on its functions. Instead, this language variety develops relatively naturally and

Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm

31

predictably. In such countries, the standard language enjoys multiple roles as both the national and official language and even as a means of daily communication. Multilingual countries, on the other hand, experience a typical quandary in clearly distinguishing between these functions in dayto-day discourse. Perhaps the easiest to discern for most multilingual African countries is the official language (H-language), which was inherited from the colonialists. Then comes the national language, which was initially intended as an L-language for interethnic communication. However, after independence, many countries such as India and Uganda sought to elevate the role of one of their own languages as a way to secure national unity. Such a language has a role typically attributed to the standard, national language, i.e. a tool towards national unity. According to Smakman’s (2006, 2012) findings, the standard language in its inclusive interpretation has as an intrinsic quality that it is a neutral and unmarked lingua franca among speakers. This confirms that sometimes the L-language carries standard-like qualities. Both the official and (the main) national languages are codified and elaborated for use as lingua francas among different communities and even in regional international contexts, for example Swahili in eastern Africa. The main complication then is that the standardisation of the L-language creates an overlap in the functions of the official language and the national language (Brann, 1994). This means that whereas there is in theory a discernible distinction between the ‘national’ and ‘official’ languages, in actual practice there are discrepancies in their functions. The L-language can function equally well as the H-language in a number of settings. A purported comprehensive standardisation model should take into account this possibility of language functions not coinciding in one language.

Distinguish between the spoken and written standard In existing paradigms, the spoken standard is usually considered a form of the written standard. Van Marle (1997: 15), however, claims that the spoken standard is not as formal as the written standard and that as the two versions of the standard they should be studied separately. Crowley (1999: 272), in fact, considers the use of the standard language to refer to both writing and speech a ‘common error’. These observations are made on the assumption of the existence of a close relationship between the written and the spoken standards. The case of Jamaican, however, demonstrates that a standard language could be inaccessible in the written form, and could be viewed by some as intrinsically not standard. Modern Standard Arabic, for instance, is standardised in its written form but inside each North African country it is not acceptable as part of daily discourse (Bassiouney, 2009). Chinese also distinguishes strictly between written

32

Part 1: General and Theoretical

language and spoken language. As for Indian languages, Sunny (2013) also refers to literary or read speech versus spoken speech rather than to the existence of a continuum based on the Labovian principle of an increased awareness of the norms leading to users trying to emulate them. In many European countries, speaking and writing more or less one and the same standardised language in daily exchanges is common. The often obvious regional and social variation within these standardised languages does not as a rule cause any breach in communication, as it is relatively minor. It is not uncommon, especially among educated speakers, to speak the standard language as a native tongue and not have a native command of another language, like a dialect. This native standard language has formal and informal registers, and it may occasionally bear a regionally or socially marked word, phrase or sound, but it frequently hides the speaker’s regional origins. Highly formal registers are more typical of the written mode, but the written standard can also be used informally and resemble the spoken form. To a degree, in these countries, the forces underlying written standardisation are also active in the standardisation of spoken forms, as pronunciation dictionaries or self-help pronunciation guides exist for several highly standardised languages such as English (see e.g. Wells, 2008) and Dutch (see e.g. Paardekooper, 1978). Such spoken standardisation is usually emblematic of the generally advanced state of standardisation of the language as a whole. This phenomenon of the existence of detailed and extensive pronunciation rules, which are reflective of living language norms, is not generally true in countries outside the Western realm. The coalescence of the written and spoken modes of the standard language in this way, and the resulting register continuum, is not universal, yet it is a common point of departure in descriptions of standardness. In fact, a more or less complete separation of the spoken and written standard languages is a common state of affairs in many countries, such as Arabic countries (Bassiouney, 2009). In these areas, a spoken standard across a whole nation or beyond is less feasible, and instead the tangible standard language is seen as existent mainly or even only in its written form. The spoken standard, or spoken standards, are often independently developing entities, and possibly stable in their regional and social variability. This variability does not necessarily reflect an unadvanced standardisation level.

Treat the ‘code-switched’ variety as a possible standard Code-switching is the norm in many bilingual communities (Poplack, 1980: 216). Traditional models of code-switching, such as those of Gumperz (1958), Ervin-Tripp (1964) and Blom and Gumperz (1972), concur among other things in that code-switching is influenced by the context, the interlocutors and the issue or topic discussed. Myers-Scotton (1993)

Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm

33

refined this in her markedness model, where she proposed three maxims of code-switching, i.e. the marked choice, the unmarked choice and the exploratory choice. Based on this model, it is arguable that code-switching is the unmarked code in some multilingual settings owing to the fact that the participants are proficient in both languages at their disposal to the same extent. This is slowly becoming a reality in a country like Kenya where English and Swahili code-switching is the norm in many informal (and even at times in formal) settings (Barasa, 2010: 304). That code-switching is the rule in some multilingual countries is a stumbling block for some concepts geared towards standardisation. For example, Finegan’s (2007: 14) and Smakman’s (2006: 283−284; 2012: 54) definition that a standard language is a variety that is used frequently as a lingua franca in public discourse, is not without loopholes. One problem is the reality of the existence of code-switching in formal contexts. This could easily lead to code-switching resulting in a standard code or variety in cases where it is the everyday norm and a general lingua franca in discourse, especially if formality is intrinsic to the discourse in question. Perhaps the main argument that would disqualify such a code or variety as a standard language is that code-switching is not practiced by way of conscious selection, and it does not allow for codification because of its fluidity. This reminds us of the point made above about separating the spoken and written forms of the language. This separation is even more pertinent in a code-switched norm, as using a code-switched language in formal written contexts can be assumed to be less acceptable. However, as already pointed out, it is possible for certain language varieties to function as standard languages without having undergone (or completed) the codification process. In essence, a code from code-switching is comparable to a spoken standard language but one that is likely to remain uncodified.

Detach ‘standard’ from prestige and power Bourdieu’s (1991) idea of the standard language as social capital is common in countries, especially European ones, where the position of the national language is undisputed and the language occupies a dominant position, and where the distribution of wealth across the social classes over the past few centuries has shown similar patterns of development: economic power spread with the language and other norms followed in its wake. Economic success and language thus became intertwined and in their final form they represent power and carry prestige. The term prestige is typically associated with success, wealth and power. Similarly, from a sociolinguistic point of view, descriptions such as ‘nicer’ and ‘better’ are strongly associated with overtly prestigious languages like the standard language (Meyerhoff, 2011: 41). This has led some to consider the standard language to be more prestigious than other

34

Part 1: General and Theoretical

varieties. This association of the standard language with various types of prestige becomes problematic if one looks to formerly colonised and highly diglossic countries. In a country like India, no highly predictable or strong social meanings are necessarily attached to variants in terms of the standard and the vernacular (Deshpande, 2003). Prestige may in fact be carried by different languages or dialects, with no dominant prestige being centred in any one of them. Standard languages are increasingly seen as languages of writing and as lingua francas in India, for instance, rather than as symbols of social prestige in comparison with vernaculars. North Africa is another example of this, and Bassiouney (2009) points to the effects of urbanisation and the rapid growth of the region’s large urban areas as having led to a division between prestige and standard varieties (see also Taine-Cheikh, 2007; Hachimi, 2007; Pereira, 2007). The Northern African lingua franca, Standard Arabic, cannot straightforwardly be equated with the prestige language in the region. While serving as the official language in various countries, Standard Arabic, however prestigious, is not generally spoken in daily life, even in prestige-inducing discourse. Instead, varieties as spoken within large cities, for instance the Cairene dialect in Egypt, are the spoken prestigious dialects. Bassiouney explicitly explains that the difference between the prestige and the standard varieties has led to wrong assumptions regarding speakers (especially women) moving away from the standard (see Labov, 1982). This shows the added complication of the interdependence of prestige and speaker characteristics. Abu-Haidar (1991) explains how in Baghdad (Iraq) Modern Standard Arabic functions as a prestige dialect, while the Muslim colloquial dialect is associated with power and economic wealth. This underscores that power and prestige do not necessarily coincide. The existence of such localised varieties carrying prestige of a specific type is not in accordance with mainstream standardness models as we know them, neither is the separation of power/affluence and prestige. In addition to the prestige attached to spoken dialects, the situation is complicated further by the active presence of the former colonial language as a contender for prestige (De Mejía, 2002). This language can be used in daily discourse, unlike Standard Arabic, for instance (Boyd-Jenkins, 2000). In Northern African countries, a policy of Arabisation is taking place, yet the prestige of the old colonial languages remains strong. Proficiency in colonial languages often acts as a requirement for education opportunities. This is not merely true for North Africa; postcolonial nations, such as Brunei (South-East Asia), Hong Kong (East Asia) and Tanzania (East Africa), often have in common that former colonial languages are official modes of communication. In Tanzania, Swahili has mustered more power in certain domains, at the expense of English, in for instance the lower courts and education, but the prestige of English remains unquestioned (see

Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm

35

Mwansoko, 1994; Petzell, 2005). In India, Modern Standard Hindi is the prestige dialect, and the expectation was that it would become the main official language, but the presence and role of English is procrastinating and possibly hindering this process (Vaish, 2005). The situations in these regions demonstrate that the classification of standard languages according to prestige is difficult given that overt prestige lies not necessarily with formal status. This supports the view that the role of prestige and power in a standardness context deserves reconsideration.

Conclusion Standardness is an elusive concept, especially when viewed from an array of angles with a cross-cultural point of view. The preceding discussion has confirmed that each society has its unique position with respect to the concept of standardness. The existing theories tend to ignore situations that do not fit the Western template. As shown in this chapter, the language that is actually used in official contexts, such as formal business contexts and parliament gatherings, is sometimes used in a way that deviates from the Western norm regarding the language to be used in these communicative contexts. This deviation itself is no reason to dismiss the language as not standard. Just as clusters of standardised languages which have followed similar patterns can be found in Europe, similar sets of standardising languages may be found elsewhere which are going through different yet predictable stages. Prevailing standard languages in such cultures deserve as much attention, even if they have not gone through all the standardisation stages yet or are experiencing alternative routes. Therefore, a more regionalised – or, rather, culturalised – approach is advisable when considering the nature and functions of a standard language.

Note (1)

See http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi.

References Abu-Haidar, F. (1991) Christian Arabic of Baghdad. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Allsopp, R. (ed.) (1996) The Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Auer, P. (2005) Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: A typology of European dialect/ standard constellations. In N. Delbecque, J. Auwera and D. Geeraerts (eds) Perspectives on Variation: Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative (pp. 7–42). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Banda, F. (1996) The scope and categorization of African English: Some sociolinguistic considerations. English World-Wide 17, 63–65.

36

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Barasa, S. (2010) Language, Mobile Phones and Internet. A Study of SMS Texting, Email, IM and SNS Chats in Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) in Kenya. Utrecht: LOT. Bassiouney, R. (2009) Arabic Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bex, T. and Watts, R.J. (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge. Blom, J. and Gumperz, J. (1972) Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code switching in northern Norway. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication (pp. 407–434). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Brann, C. (1994) The national language question: Concepts and terminology. Logos 14, 125−134. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boyd-Jenkins, O. (2000) Population analysis of the Arabic languages. See http:// strategyleader.org/articles/arabicpercent.html (accessed 6 June 2014). Cassidy, F. (1971) Tracing the pidgin element in Jamaican creole. In D. Hymes (ed.) Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (pp. 203−22). Proceedings from a conference held at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, April 1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chaurand, J. (1999) Nouvelle Histoire de la Langue Française. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Coulmas, F. (2005) Changing language regimes in globalizing environments. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 175/176, 3−15. Crowley, T. (1999) Curiouser and curiouser: Falling standards in the standard English debate. In T. Bex and R. Watts (eds) Standard English: The Widening Debate (pp. 271−282). London: Routledge. DeCamp, D. (1971) Towards a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. In D. Hymes (ed.) Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (pp. 349−370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deshpande, S. (2003) Contemporary India. A Sociological View. New Delhi: Penguin India. Deumert, A. and Vandenbussche, W. (2003) Standard languages: Taxonomies and histories. In A. Deumert and W. Vandenbussche (eds) Germanic Standardizations: Past and Present (pp. 1−14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Devonish, H. (2003) Language advocacy and conquest diglossia in the “Anglophone Caribbean”. In C. Mair (ed.) The Politics of English as a World Language (pp. 157−178). New York: Editions Rodopi. Devonish, H. and Walters, K. (2015) The Jamaican language situation. A process, not a type. In D. Smakman and P. Heinrich (eds) Globalising Sociolinguistics. Challenging and Expanding Theory (pp. 223−232). London: Routledge. De Mejía, A. (2002) Power, Prestige, and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. De Vries, J., Willemyns, R. and Burger, P. (1993) Het Verhaal van een Taal. Negen Eeuwen Nederlands [The Story of a Language. Nine Centuries of Dutch]. Amsterdam: Prometheus. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1964) An analysis of the interaction of language, topic and listener. American Anthropologist 66 (6), 86−102. Ferguson, C. ([1968] 1996) Language development. In C. Ferguson and T. Huebner (eds) Sociolinguistic Perspectives: Papers on Language in Society, 1959−1994 (pp. 40–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Finegan, E. (2007) Language: Its Structure and Use. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth. Fisher, J. (1996) The Emergence of Standard English. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Gough, D. (1996) Black English in South Africa. In V. De Klerk (ed.) Focus on South Africa (pp. 53–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gumperz, J. (1958) Dialect differences and social stratification in a North Indian village. American Anthropologist 60 (4), 668–682.

Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm

37

Hachimi, A. (2007) Becoming Casablancan: Fessis in Casablanca as a case study. In C. Miller, E. Al-Wer, D. Caubet and J.C.E. Watson (eds) Arabic in the City: Issues in Dialect Contact and Language Variation (pp. 97−122). London: Routledge. Haugen, E. (1966) Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68 (4), 922–935. Hoenigswald, H. (1966) A proposal for the study of folk-linguistics. In W. Bright (ed.) Sociolinguistics (pp. 16−26). The Hague: Mouton. Human Development Index by the United Nations Development Group. See http://hdr. undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi (accessed 6 June 2014). Jespersen, O. (1925) Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co. Kachru, B. (1976) Models of English for the third world: White man’s linguistic burden or language pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly 10 (2), 221. Kachru, B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kloeke, G. (1951) Beschaafdentaal [Civilised Language]. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsche Taal en Letterkunde 69, 294−313. Labov, W. (1982) Building on empirical foundations. In W. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds) Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 17–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lewis, P., Simons, G. and Fennig, C. (eds) (2013) Ethnologue. Languages of the World (17th edn). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Lippi-Green, R. (2012) English with an Accent. Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London/New York: Routledge. Mesthrie, R. (2015) Towards a distributed sociolinguistics of postcolonial multilingual communities. The case of Southern Africa. In D. Smakman and P. Heinrich (eds) Globalising Sociolinguistics. Challenging and Expanding Theory (pp. 80–91). London: Routledge. Meyerhoff, M. (2011) Introducing Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge. Meyerhoff, M. and Nagy, N. (2008) Social Lives in Language – Sociolinguistics and Multilingual Speech Communities Celebrating the Work of Gillian Sankoff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Migliorini, B. (1984) The Italian Language. London: Faber and Faber. Milroy, J. (1992) Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. ([1985] 2012) Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation (4th edn). London/New York: Routledge. Morren, R. and Morren, D. (2007) Are the goals and objectives of Jamaica’s Bilingual Education Project being met? In SIL Electronic Working Papers 2007−2009. See www.sil.org/silewp/2007/silewp2007-009.pdf (accessed 6 June 2014). Mufwene, S. (2000) Creolization is a social, not a structural, process. In I. NeumannHolzschuh and E. Schneider (eds) Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages (pp. 65–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mwansoko, H. (1994) The post-primary swahilinisation scheme in Tanzania: From debate to struggle. In C.M. Rubagumya (ed.) Teaching and Researching Language in African Classrooms (pp. 15−23). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993) Social Motivations for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Olajide, S. and Olaniyi, O. (2013) Educated Nigerian English phonology as core of a regional “RP”. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 3 (14), 277−286. Paardekooper, P. (1978) ABN Uitspraakgids [Standard Dutch Pronunciation Guide]. Antwerpen: Heideland-Orbis. Pereira, C. (2007) Urbanization and dialect change: The Arabic dialect of Tripoli (Libya). In C. Miller, E. Al-Wer, D. Caubet and J.C.E. Watson (eds) Arabic in the City: Issues in Dialect Contact and Language Variation (pp. 77–96). London: Routledge. Petzell, M. (2005) Expanding the Swahili vocabulary. Africa & Asia 5, 85−107.

38

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Poplack, S. (1980) Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18, 581–618. Rees, S. (2005) The Decolonisation of English in and through Postcolonial Fiction: A Select Study. PhD thesis, Pondicherry University. Roberge, P.T. (2011) Pidgins, creoles, and the creation of language. In K.R. Gibson and M. Tallerman (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution (pp. 537–544). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schneider, E. (1990) The cline of creoleness. English World-Wide 11 (1), 79−113. Smakman, D. (2006) Standard Dutch in the Netherlands: A Sociolinguistic and Phonetic Description. Utrecht: LOT. Smakman, D. (2012) The definition of the standard language. A survey in seven countries. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 218, 25–58. Smakman, D. (2015) The westernising mechanisms in sociolinguistics. In D. Smakman and P. Heinrich (eds) Globalising Sociolinguistics. Challenging and Expanding Theory (pp. 16−35). London: Routledge. Smith, L. (1983) Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon. Stewart, W. (1968) A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism. In J. Fishman (ed.) Readings in the Sociology of Language (pp. 531–545). The Hague: Mouton. Subačius, G. (2002) Perspectives of a history of European standard languages. Lituanus: Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences 48 (1), 33–51. Sunny, N. (2013) A Sociolinguistic Study of Malayalam in Cherukunnam. MPhil thesis, University of Delhi. Taine-Cheikh, C. (2007) The (r)urbanization of Mauritania: Historical context and contemporary developments. In C. Miller, E. Al-Wer, D. Caubet and J.C.E. Watson (eds) Arabic in the City: Issues in Dialect Contact and Language Variation (pp. 35–54). London: Routledge. Thomason, S. and Kaufman, T. (1988) Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Ewing, CA: University of California Press. Vaish, V. (2005) A peripherist view of English as a language of decolonization in postcolonial India. Language Policy 4 (2), 187−206. Van der Wal, M. and Van Bree, C. (2008) Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Van der Walt, J. and Van Rooy, B. (2002) Towards a norm in South African Englishes. World Englishes 21 (1), 113−128. Van Marle, J. (1997) Dialect versus standard language: Nature versus culture. In J. Cheshire and D. Stein (eds) Taming the Vernacular (pp. 13−34). London: Longman. Watts, R. and Trudgill, P. (eds) (2002) Alternative Histories of English. London: Routledge. Wells, J. (2008) Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

3 Prescriptivism and Writing Systems Florian Coulmas

Introduction In antiquity, grammatikê tekhnê meant ‘the art of writing’. Grammar had nothing to do with vernacular speech, which was disorderly and lacking both permanence and supraregional unity. The idea that writing and speech should be closely related only gained ground in early Renaissance Europe, starting in Italy where Dante ([1303−1305] 1996) put forth an argument for the beauty and nobility of the vernacular. The debate which his treatise De Vulgari Eloquentia instigated and to which his magnum opus, Divina Commedia (ca. 1308−1320), written, unlike the treatise, in Italian, lent substance, went on for centuries, during which the reading public grew and the desire to facilitate access to the written language became more pronounced. In a long process of vernacularisation, the monopoly of writing was wrested from the classical languages, while common speech began to be regulated and reduced to fixed rules.

Writing and Prescriptivism It is pointing out the obvious that the notion of laying down rules for language is entirely reliant on writing. Not that etymology is always a good guide to meaning, but in the event ‘prescribe’ is a telling expression: both the object and the instrument of prescribing are written language, which, by virtue of the visual medium, suggests permanence and requires orderliness. Prescription is about guidance for writers, as are the rules of grammar in general. Modern linguistics led by the Young Grammarians and Saussure’s phonocentrism radically changed this perception, insisting that local varieties and unwritten languages, too, be recognised as systems of great complexity rather than being ‘without rules of grammar’. Yet, the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive grammar still has no firm place in the public mind, and the folk notion of the standard language as invariant and immutable persists. This language is, of course, the language

39

40

Part 1: General and Theoretical

of writing as taught at school, where children are imparted the rules they must obey. Writing, as Olson (1996) argued, rather than being its visual image becomes a model. Because, unlike speech, writing is not acquired spontaneously, the underlying rules are raised to the level of conscious reflection. Conformity is accomplished through drills. Language, both spoken and written, has rules, no matter whether those who follow them are cognisant of their existence. Society needs rules, rules that are made explicit. Blackboard and exercise books thus became the parade grounds for training a literate public to make the correct moves and avoid mistakes. The rigidity of censure varies from one speech community and society to another and must be studied in the context of linguistic culture. National traditions, educational policies and linguistic environments make for considerable variation (see, for example, Hagège [1996] for French; van Hout & Knops [1988] for Dutch; Oakes [2001] for Swedish; Kakridi-Ferrari [2008] for Greek; Gregersen [2011] for Danish; Auer & Spiekerman [2011] for German). These and many other publications have described and analysed linguistic standardisation in great detail, discussing what standards are and how they are connected with social developments, power, culture and ideology. Religion is well known as a major influence on the formation of standard languages, especially through canonical texts serving as reference points of ‘good usage’ beyond liturgical practice (Sawyer & Simpson, 2001), and so is bureaucratic government (Clanchy, 1979). Ever since Haugen’s (1972) early attempt to systematise language planning processes, it is generally recognised that graphic codification plays a central role in standardisation. However, most research about standardisation and prescriptive grammars has paid little attention to the writing system as a potential variable, that is, to the question of whether different writing systems impact the process of standardisation differently. This is so because most of this research is about alphabetically written languages carried out by scholars who were socialised in such languages and had little contact with other writing systems. Saussure’s apodictic statement that ‘there are only two systems of writing’, the ideographic where ‘each word is represented by a different sign that is unrelated to the sounds of the word itself’, and the phonetic which ‘tries to reproduce the succession of sounds that make up a word’ (Saussure [1916] 1989: 74) has proved very influential, although it fails to do justice to the variety of writing systems and their complex semiological relationships to other levels of linguistic structure. His dual categorisation in combination with his verdict that ‘phonetic’ writing is but a parasitic representation of language that obscures its true nature served as a good pretext to give writing short shrift in linguistic scholarship and the continuing disregard for writing in linguistic theory formation (Coulmas, 2013).

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems

41

Clearly, there is plenty of variation even within the confines of alphabetical literacy. Every instance of prescriptivism is different, being placed in a local environment and starting from distinct preconditions. Alphabetic writing is associated, on the one hand, with the most rigid language regime (Martinez, 2012) and with ‘orthographical anarchy’ (Pusch, 2008: 79), on the other, and with everything in between. Thus, there is sufficient diversity to consider. Moreover, a common set of basic letters does not imply identical writing systems. For instance, deep (French) and shallow (Italian) orthographies have been distinguished, where deep systems are characterised by a more indirect spelling − sound correspondence than shallow ones. However, given that writing systems have a formative influence on their users’ conception of language, it is a legitimate question whether the structural differences between them have any implications for prescriptive rules and attitudes. It is to this question that I will now turn.

Writing System and Standardisation There are six writing systems that represent the major types of writing in use today – Roman, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese (Kana), Devanāgarī, Korean (Hangul, also Romanised as Hangeul, Han’gŭl and Hankul) – and I will subject them to six questions which together may lead to an answer to the overarching question of whether the structural make-up of a writing system should be included among the conditions under which prescriptive projects operate. I will discuss the following questions: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

What is the ordering principle of the writing system (sequence)? How are dictionaries arranged (structural level)? What are the writing system’s key principles of orthography? Is there a relationship between writing system and purism? Does the writing system arrest/slow down linguistic change? Does the writing system foster diglossia?

Ordering principle In speech, there is no easily recognisable order of elements, but writing systems have invariably developed a sequential order which is, perhaps, the most obvious starting point for prescriptive designs. Writing must be learnt and its elements must be committed to memory. This is one motivation, though not the only one, for stipulating a fixed order. Is there a natural order? The multiplicity of extant writing systems and their various sorting orders suggests otherwise, though the Indians have a strong case for the naturalness of the order of their letters. The order of the Roman alphabet, while historically motivated, does not follow any

42

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Figure 3.1 The canonical alphabetical order

systematic principle. Since, in Western eyes, the entire universe extends from alpha to omega, there is a huge literature about the sequence of alphabetic letters, tracing it back to its Semitic origin (Salomon, 2013); however, to young learners the ABC order is entirely arbitrary and typically remains so throughout their lives. Its arbitrariness does not make it less important, on the contrary. There never has been a more influential ordering convention than the sequence of the Latin alphabet. Without it the information society wouldn’t be what it is, the binary code that governs computer-mediated information flow remaining largely invisible. The sequence is accordingly extremely rigid (Figure 3.1). Students cannot be allowed to have deviant preferences. Like the Roman alphabet, the Arabic alphabet or abjad is a script with a very small inventory of 28 basic signs for consonants and long vowels, additional letters being added for non-Semitic languages such as Persian, Urdu and Malay. The traditional sequence resembles that of other Phoenician-derived alphabets, but nowadays another order is used for sorting and reference works, which groups letters by graphical similarity (Figure 3.2). This is clearly the result of deliberate planning. In Chinese writing, too, character shape is at the heart of the ordering principle. The most comprehensive dictionary contains some 50,000 characters. Already in antiquity the number of characters was huge and kept growing. In order to get a grip on this mass, characters are sorted for common elements called radicals, many of which are characters in their own right and hence associated with a meaning. The system thus exhibits double articulation: the 214 traditional radicals (Figure 3.3) are ordered by the number of strokes, and the characters containing them are ordered likewise by the total number of strokes including the radical and the additional strokes that then make up the whole character. Japanese Kana, originally derived from Chinese characters, is a simple, parsimonious writing system consisting of two isomorphic sets

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems

43

Figure 3.2 The Arabic abjad, ordered for graphical similarity

of 48 basic syllable characters (hiragana and katakana). There are two ordering principles, the so-called 50 Sounds Table (Figure 3.4) with five singular vowels and nine consonants whose sequence is clearly inspired by

Figure 3.3 Chinese radicals ordered by the number of composite strokes

44

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Figure 3.4 The ‘Fifty Sounds Table’ of Japanese hiragana. The figure includes 46 rather than 48 kana, because in modern Japanese /wi/ and /we/ merged with /i/ and /e/ and the characters for the former, ゐ and ゑ, respectively, fell out of use. The position of ん /n/, the only consonant sign without a vowel, does not fit the grid and often appears in a row of its own.

Sanskrit/Devānagarī, and a pangram mnemonic verse, I-ro-ha, containing every kana character once. Both ordering principles date from medieval times when Kana was first developed. The Devanāgarī script is an alphasyllabary or abugida, a system in which consonant−vowel sequences are written as units. The script is closely mapped on the phonological structure of the language (Sanskrit, Hindi, Marathi, Nepali). The sorting order of its graphemes, called akshara, follows phonological principles. First come primary vowels, then secondary vowels, which are diphthongs in Sanskrit. Consonants, that is stops and nasals, follow, the former being arranged according to their place and manner of articulation from the back to the front of the mouth, in IPA transcription as follows (diphthongs are omitted): Vowels aāiīuūṛṝ ḷ ḹ e ai o au aṁaḥ Consonants ka kha ga gha ŋa ca cha ʝa ʝha ɲa ṭa ṭha ḍa ḍha ɳa ta tha da dha na pa pha ba bha ma ya ra la va śa ṣa sa ha kṣa j ña The traditional sequence is known as varnamala ‘garland of letters’, which for Sanskrit consists of 16 vowels and 35 consonants (Figure 3.5).

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems

45

Figure 3.5 Devanāgarī consonant letters ordered by place of articulation

The sorting order of Hangul, the Korean alphabet, is clearly influenced by that of Indic systems, although it is also indebted to the Chinese model of consonant classification (Song, 2011). Having been designed at the drawing board, it comes closest to having a systematic and entirely transparent order, separating vowels and consonants and listing the latter in order of points of articulation. Reversing the Indic order, consonants precede vowels (Figure 3.6). Analytically, Hangul is an alphabet; however, the unit of writing is the syllable.

Figure 3.6 Hangul, ordered by place of articulation

46

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Dictionary organisation Dictionaries, more particularly monolingual dictionaries, are for ‘language makers’ (Harris, 1980) the most consequential instrument of language cultivation. In the public mind, what’s not in the dictionary doesn’t belong to the language. Since dictionaries are often immense works as well as national monuments, their ordering principle is of the utmost importance and a key element of linguistic culture. Dictionaries of languages written with Roman letters use the alphabetical sequence as a superordinate ordering principle, even in meaning-based thesauruses (Martinez, 2012). Reverse dictionaries also exist for many languages, sorting each lemma by its last letter and proceeding towards the beginning of the word. Arabic dictionaries are based on the traditional Arabic root order, which means that in order to locate a word you must be familiar with the root system of the language. Lexical entries under each root are arranged according to four principles: the perfect form of the verb stem, vowels of the imperfect stem, nominalised forms of the stem and finite verb forms. This system implies that words derived from the same root are not always listed in close proximity in the dictionary. The obvious difficulty posed by non-Semitic loanwords is resolved by listing them in alphabetical order or under a root, if a suitable one can be found, or both. Chinese lexicography deals with three aspects of characters: their graphic form, sound and meaning, often in combination. Rhyming dictionaries that specify homophone characters and separate characters for onset and rhyme (fanqie 反切, literally ‘reverse cutting’) are also arranged according to graphic form and explain the meaning of characters. The bulk of Chinese dictionaries are character dictionaries. First codified in the Kāngxī Zìdiǎn (康熙字典), a dictionary of 1716, they have undergone several modifications since that time, especially with the 1964 simplification. Japanese dictionaries are typically ordered following the ‘Fifty Sounds Table’ (Figure 3.4), listing all Japanese words including a large number of words of Chinese origin. In regular writing, however, Japanese uses a mixed system which combines Chinese characters and Kana and, of late, in some measure Roman letters as well. In Chinese-character dictionaries the same ordering principle as in Chinese dictionaries applies, although entries are more complicated (Lurie, 2011). In Sanskrit and other Indic dictionaries, entries are sorted according to the classical order of the 51 basic akshara of the ‘garland of letters’ (varnamala). However, this is only part of the story. An akshara is defined as an orthographical syllable which may consist of one or several or no initial consonant and a vowel. While the 51 akshara of Sanskrit/Devanāgarī are simple enough, the complex phonological structure of many Indian languages makes for a large number of syllables which find orthographic

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems

47

expression in ligatures or compound consonant syllables. Sources vary greatly between 5,000 and 12,000 akshara (Mudur, 2004: 265), which is indicative of, on the one hand, the large volume of extant literature and, on the other, of the coexistence of variant forms. Since India has taken to computer-mediated communication, the resulting difficulties of lexicography have been attacked with a vengeance. As the Technology Development for Indian Languages (TDIL) programme of the Indian Department of Electronics and Information Technology puts it, [s]tandardization is the only means to unite the diversity of Indian language arena to develop and maintain best practices in the field of languages. India has 22 constitutionally recognized languages and 11 scripts, it is therefore essential to have a common platform of standardization to develop and maintain best practices in the field of languages.1 Korean dictionaries basically follow the standard order of Hangul, but in the course of time the language policies of the two Koreas have led to different sorting orders of dictionary entries. Whereas in South Korean dictionaries complex letters follow each corresponding basic letter, they are summarily grouped after all basic letters in North Korea (Sohn, 1997: 197).

Orthography Roman-alphabet-based orthographies are about permissible sequences of letters, word division and capitalisation. Today, a space for indicating word boundaries is part of the grapheme inventory of most writing systems. These systems differ with regard to the linguistic subsystem most relevant for the spelling conventions which may be phonetic, phonemic, morphophonemic, lexical or etymological. Few orthographies are entirely consistent, and more commonly use a mixture of these principles. Arabicalphabet-based orthographies are various and depend on the structure and genetic affiliation of the language. In Arabic, it is customary to indicate only long vowels. Short vowels are only indicated for learners. Arabic orthography with and without short vowels has been described as shallow and deep, respectively (Abu-Rabia & Taha, 2006). Thanks to the rootbased lexis of Arabic, the numerous homographs in unvowelised texts do not inconvenience experienced readers. Other languages cannot so easily dispense with vowel notation, which is why non-Semitic languages such as Persian, (Ottoman) Turkish and Urdu employ additional letters (e.g. 32 for Persian compared to 28 Arabic). A common feature of the many varieties of Arabic is that letters have four distinct graphemic forms depending on the position in the word (initial, medial, final or isolated) that must be distinguished for correct spelling.

48

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Chinese orthography is focused on character formation, that is, it distinguishes between standard and non-standard characters. Since the foundation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, several writing reform initiatives have been undertaken to standardise modern Chinese writing, including the publication in 1964 of the General List of Simplified Characters. Minor revisions of the list of 2236 characters were announced in 1986 (Rohsenow, 2004). While this list is recognised as the official standard in China, use of non-standard characters is still widespread, a practice that is reinforced by increasing traffic between China and Taiwan, where simplified characters have never been accepted, not to mention Hong Kong, where simplified characters are still stigmatised occasionally as communist machinations. The growing needs of information processing in the Chinese-speaking world are not likely to advance standardisation, as the encoding of variant characters is becoming ever more sophisticated. Modern Japanese Kana orthography is relatively simple, since the script has a close fit with the syllable structure of the language. Some historical spellings have been eliminated in modern times, as some formerly distinct syllables, notably wi and we and i and e, collapsed into one, making the respective characters redundant. The orthography of regular Japanese, which includes two sets of Kana and Chinese characters, is more complicated. Fixing the standard form of characters and limiting the number of characters in common use are issues closely resembling Chinese orthography. In addition, another level of complexity is added as Chinese characters are used not just for writing Chinese loanwords, but for Japanese words as well. Thus, rules for combining Chinese characters and Kana form an important part of Japanese orthography. Devanāgarī orthography for Sanskrit, using the akshara as its central unit, is historical and highly standardised. Word processing software has brought about minor changes in so far as secondary diacritics for nasal consonants have been replaced by a simple dot placed above the consonant letter (anusvāra अनु ). Devanāgarī orthography for Sanskrit’s successor language Hindi is standardised and phonologically transparent and consistent, although the indication of nasal consonants exhibits some variation. Two variant forms of several graphemes, the Mumbai and Kolkata variants, coexist, and the composition of consonant compounds (ligatures) is historically a matter of considerable variation. Of late, this has given rise to what software developers call ‘script grammars’, which define the manner in which Hindi and other major Indian languages are to be written. A script grammar accepts only valid, that is, correctly composed aksharas, ‘to ensure that invalid sequences do not occur in any language’.2 In the course of time, Chinese characters in Korean orthography have been replaced by Hangul to various degrees. North Korea has abandoned Chinese characters altogether for the sake of the ‘national’ script, which is also held in high esteem in South Korea; there, however, Chinese

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems

49

characters continue to be used for writing Chinese-origin lexemes. What is more, Hangul orthography proper developed slightly differently in the two countries, since North Korea introduced a couple of new digraphs (King, 1997).

Purism Preserving the purity of the language is a politically motivated item that frequently appears on the prescriptivist agenda of language cultivation. The question therefore arises whether one writing system is more prone to foster purist designs than another, both with regard to the language and to the script. Among the languages using Roman script, there are those that meet the needs of lexical innovation by coining new words while others favour borrowing (e.g. French versus English). Moreover, these preferences are subject to change over time (e.g. hospitable Medieval Greek versus reclusive Modern Greek) and linguistic environment (Dutch in The Netherlands and Belgium; Van Hout & Knops, 1988). Likewise, orthographic purism, insisting on nativising the spelling of loanwords, does not seem to depend on the nature of the writing system. It should be noted, however, that modern European standard languages do not generally tolerate inclusion of elements from non-Roman scripts. This is a result of the more rigid standardisation brought about by compulsory education (van der Horst, 2008). In medieval manuscripts it was common to render foreign words, for instance Greek quotations in Latin texts, in ipsissimae litterae, in their proper letters. Arabic orthographies can easily incorporate loanwords from other languages using the Arabic alphabet, though Classical Arabic, being a religious language, is not very hospitable to loanwords. Modern Standard Arabic includes many loanwords from European languages in Arabic spelling. Including loanwords in Roman orthography from the languages Arabic has been most in contact with during the past centuries, particularly French and English, is not an option because of the left-running direction of the script. For Chinese, the case can be made that the writing system itself furthers purism, because Chinese characters are meaningful elements that are associated not just with syllables, but with Chinese morphemes as well. Writing foreign words, even proper names, is therefore a rather cumbersome affair. The graphical nature of Chinese characters also makes it difficult to incorporate elements of other scripts, although Roman letters have begun to appear in Chinese writing. Japanese writing is clearly among the most inclusive. In its mature form, it has been a mixed system most of the time, combining three different scripts, Chinese characters and two Kana syllabaries. In contemporary usage, one of them, Katakana,

50

Part 1: General and Theoretical

is employed to integrate non-Chinese loanwords. Roman letters have lately invaded public signage and other publications to the extent that some people consider them to be yet another part of the Japanese writing system (Tranter, 2008). Orthographic purism in the sense of discarding Chinese characters and writing everything with Hiragana only has been occasionally suggested, but never had a serious chance of success. Devanāgarī is closely adapted to the phonology of Sanskrit and its successor languages. Loanwords from non-Indic languages are made to conform to the distinctions that the system provides. A conspicuous design feature of the script is the horizontal headstroke at the top of the letters. In classical Sanskrit, the headstroke extends beyond word boundaries, but in modern languages words are usually separated by spaces. The headstroke makes it difficult to incorporate system-external graphemes. In this sense, Devanāgarī favours orthographic purism. Purism in Korean came to the fore only in the 20th century, when Hangul was touted as a symbol of national identity under Japanese colonial rule. Hangul continues to be regarded with great pride in both Koreas, though today North Korean orthographic conventions exemplify stronger purist attitudes, excluding all foreign elements, notably Chinese which for many centuries supplied both the language of learning and a large proportion of Korean lexis. By abandoning Chinese characters, the Sinic stratum of the Korean lexicon is made to look more native. Roman letters are also present in Korean texts, though in the South more than in the North. Concerning graphical purism, Arabic numerals, which the Indians prefer to call Hindu numerals, provide an interesting test case. They are widespread and have been integrated in virtually all scripts currently in use. Roman numerals are retained for decorative purposes as are Chinese numerals, but where numerical information is to be communicated, Arabic numerals are the default choice. This suggests that under functional pressure system-external graphemes can invade all systems, neutralising whatever purist opposition there may be. This leads to another interesting question which I can only mention in passing here, that is, the diffusion of writing systems and their adaptation to other languages. Suffice it to make a twofold distinction between cosmopolitan and vernacular scripts, as presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Cosmopolitan and vernacular scripts Roman Chinese Arabic Devanāgarī Kana Hangul

cosmopolitan cosmopolitan cosmopolitan national vernacular vernacular

demotic elitist demotic elitist demotic demotic

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems

51

Roman, Arabic, Chinese and to some extent Devanāgarī belong to the first category, while Kana and Hangul have rarely been used for other languages and must thus be considered vernacular or ethnic systems. The following is a simplified classification of writing systems along these lines: Adaptation to other languages: Roman

to many typologically vastly different languages

Chinese

to a limited number of typologically different languages

Arabic

to many typologically vastly different languages

Devanāgarī

to many typologically similar/identical languages3

Kana (Japanese) adapted to Ryukyuan, but no other languages 4 Hangul (Korean) not adapted to other languages5

Arresting change Verba volant, scripta manent. This Latin proverb suggests that speech is ephemeral, whereas written documents remain for future reference. Obvious but not trivial, this is a defining feature that distinguishes written language from spoken discourse, thus forming the basis of all expressions of linguistic conservatism. What then is the relationship between the two? Since words disappear as soon as they have been uttered, there is no way of ascertaining their similarity with the ones we spoke yesterday, let alone earlier than that. Words change, no matter how slowly and imperceptibly. Written words, by contrast, have a stable existence. We can revisit them, ours and those of others that were penned, printed or scratched on a wall as long as 2000 years ago. It has been argued that thanks to its permanent nature and its function of representing speech, writing has the power to arrest or at least slow down linguistic change. Would, then, we may ask, a writing system that is phonetic be more effective at doing this than one operating on a higher level of linguistic structure? A comparison of the proposed six-model systems (see Table 3.2) in this regard does not confirm this. The history of Romance languages speaks of perpetual change as does that of Arabic. There is no evidence that the rate of language change is faster in Chinese with its logographic writing system, or that language change in Japanese and Korean was slowed down when their speakers changed from a logographic to a phonetic writing system. The situation of Sanskrit written in Devanāgarī and other scripts is somewhat special in this respect. In India, writing is subservient to speech (Malamoud, 1997: 99), and students of Sanskrit are invariably struck by the great uniformity of the language over many centuries. However, this is not because Sanskrit did not change, but rather because, unlike other languages of learning such as

A bit because of the tri-consonantal root No Class. Arabic Mod. Arabic vernaculars

–

No

Medieval Latin Romance vernaculars

Diglossia

No Class. Chinese Chinese Japanese Korean

Lexical (syllabic) A bit because characters are meaningful

Deep (with Vs) shallow (without Vs)

Orthography Purism – Language – Writing Arrest change

Characters words

Word based Deep morpho-phonemic shallow phonemic

Dictionary

Rhyme roots word initials

Arbitrary semitic derived

Ordering principle

Graphic similarity of letters

Logographic

Consonant alphabetic (abjad)

Alphabetic

Six classes, radicals, number of strokes

Chinese

Arabic

Roman

Table 3.2 Overview of the six writing systems discussed

Vernacular writing

No

–

Syllabic (lexical)

Syllabic 50 sounds table; mnemonic pangram i-ro-ha Characters thesaurus pronunciation

Kana

Word based

varnamala ‘garland of letters’

No

Vernacular writing

Sanskrit South Asian languages

– No

–

Phonemic syllabic

Phonetic iconic

Akshara aāi īuū ka kha ga gha …

Lexical (aksharas)

Alphasyllabic compact

Hangul

Alphasyllabic linear (abugida)

Devanāgarī

52 Part 1: General and Theoretical

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems

53

Classical Latin and Classical Arabic, the monumental literature of Sanskrit was only written down after the language had ceased to be a spoken vernacular. It was no one’s native language when it was codified to become ‘the eternal language, unchanging and perfect’, as its students say. More prosaically, ‘it flourished only after it was dead’ (Gnanadesikan, 2009: 178). As the successor languages of Sanskrit testify, language change occurred in India as everywhere else, and Devanāgarī is no more prone to slow down this process than other writing systems. This is not to deny that writing has an influence on language or that the writing system is just an empty vessel that can be filled with any conceivable content which, therefore, makes no difference. Writing systems are the filter through which literate speech communities view their language. Spelling pronunciations, by no means limited to alphabetic writing systems, clearly testify to the pervasive influence of writing on language: the longer the literary tradition and the higher the literacy, the greater the influence. However, to this day, empirical evidence to suggest the variable effects of typologically different writing systems on linguistic change is elusive.

Diglossia A related point at issue is whether the nature of the writing system bears any relationship with the sociolinguistic situation known as diglossia, that is, the function-specific allocation in a speech community of two varieties characterised as High and Low. In India, where this kind of sociolinguistic arrangement is ubiquitous (De Silva, 1976), the question has been raised whether the nature of Devanāgarī and other Indian writing systems of the same cut promotes its occurrence. Much ink has been spilled on attempts to refine as well as to blur the concept of diglossia, which, however, can ultimately be reduced to a division of labour between a variety used in writing and another used in speech (Coulmas, 2013: 39–40). One may therefore ask whether complex writing systems are more likely to produce diglossia than simple ones. Simple though the question seems, it is hard to answer, one reason being that there is no obvious measure for the relative complexity of writing systems. Devanāgarī has a close phonetic fit, but because of the many aksharas it is by no means easy to master. The grapheme inventory of Roman is much smaller, but mastering a Romanbased writing system is much easier in some languages than in others. However that may be, diglossia can be found wherever writing is put at the service of language cultivation, irrespective of the writing system: in medieval Europe, in the Arabic-speaking and writing world, in China and adjacent countries to which Chinese writing spread, Japan and Korea and in South Asia. Conversely, it can be said that diglossia does not emerge in the absence of writing, but the structural design of the tool, the ‘technology of the intellect’, to use Jack Goody’s (1977: 151) felicitous term,

54

Part 1: General and Theoretical

does not seem to have a bearing on its occurrence or persistence. Diglossia is about linguistic culture, that is, how a speech community employs the technology, how it handles the gap between High and Low, a gap that appears in various guises as grammar and speech, literary language and vernacular, langue and patois, elaborated and restricted code, among others. Prescriptive schemes for narrowing, if not closing, the gap were first developed in the 14th century for Italian to be followed by other European languages; for Greek in the early and Japanese in the late 19th century, in the 20th century for Chinese, and such schemes are today a prominent feature of language cultivation in the Arabic-speaking world. The process of elevating the vernacular to written status continues today, although some may prefer to describe it as vulgarising the written language. The social, technological and linguistic factors exerting an influence on this development are many. Writing systems should not be overlooked in this connection. Change continues, and the nature of the gap between the vernacular and grammatica is being redefined as we watch and as we pick up our smartphones, by a new generation using new writing implements for novel purposes and in new ways yet to be explored.

Conclusion Any discussion about prescriptivism in language necessarily involves writing, if only because it is easier to set, monitor and enforce rules for writing than for speaking. Due to the distinct formative principles of writing systems, the rules that are prescribed differ and so do the potential effects on the writing system and on the codification of the languages they are employed to write. In this chapter, I have examined six writing systems with regard to six potential implications they have for linguistic culture. The resulting matrix, presented as Table 3.2, is intended as an initial sketch to be expanded and modified by additional and, perhaps, more pertinent distinctions.

Notes (1) TDIL: http://tdil-dc.in/index.php?option=com_vertical&parentid=1&lang=en. (2) See http://language.worldofcomputing.net/grammar/script-grammar.html (accessed 5 July 2016). (3) Southeast Asian scripts, such as Thai, Lao, Myanmar and Old Mon, are of Indic descent, but have been adapted structurally and graphically to such an extent that they cannot be recognised as variants of Devanāgarī. (4) An adaptation during colonial times for the Chinese Mǐn dialect of Taiwan has been described by Klöter (2005), which, however, never gained real currency. (5) For isolated demonstration purposes and in educational settings, Kana and Hangul have occasionally been used to write other languages, but this does not change the basic fact that these scripts are regularly employed only for Japanese and Korean, respectively.

Prescriptivism and Writing Systems

55

References Abu-Rabia, S. and Taha H. (2006) Reading in Arabic orthography: Characteristic research findings and assessment. In R. Malathesha Joshi and P.G. Aaron (eds) Handbook of Orthography and Literacy (pp. 321−338). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Auer, P. and Spiekerman H. (2011) Demotisation of the standard variety or destandardisation? The changing status of German in late modernity. In T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds) Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 161−176). Oslo: Novus Press. Clanchy, M. (1979) From Memory to Written Record: England 1066−1307. Oxford: Blackwell. Coulmas, F. (2013) Writing and Society. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dante ([1303−1305] 1996) De Vulgari Eloquentia. (S. Botterill, transl. and ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Silva, M.W. Sugathapala (1976) Diglossia and Literacy. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Gnanadesikan, A.E. (2009) The Writing Revolution. Cuneiform to the Internet. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Goody, J. (1977) The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gregersen, F. (2011) Language and ideology in Denmark. In T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds) Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 47–55). Oslo: Novus Press. Hagège, C. (1996) Le Français, histoire d’un combat. Paris: Edition de Michel Hagège. Harris, R. (1980) The Language Makers. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Haugen, E. (1972) Linguistics and language planning. In A.S. Dil (ed.) The Ecology of Language. Essays by Einar Haugen (pp. 159−190). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Kakridi-Ferrari, M. (2008) Orthographic reforms: Attitudes and resistances [in Greek]. In M. Theodoropoulou (ed.) Warmth and Light: In Memory of A.-F. Christidis (pp. 365−384). Thessaloniki: Center of the Greek Language. King, R. (1997) Language, politics, and ideology in the Postwar Koreas. In D.R. McCann (ed.) Korea Briefing: Toward Reunification (pp. 124–126). Armonk, NJ: M.E. Sharpe. Klöter, H. (2005) Written Taiwanese. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lurie, D.B. (2011) Realms of Literacy. Early Japan and the History of Writing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Malamoud, Ch. (1997) Noirceur de l’écriture. Remarques sur un theme littéraire de l’Inde ancienne. In V. Alleton (ed.) Paroles à dire, Paroles à écrire (pp. 85−114). Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. Martinez, C. (2012) L’orthographe des Dictionnaires Franςais. La construction de la Norme Graphique par les Lexicographes. Paris: Honoré Champion Éditeur. Mudur, S.P. (2004) Authentic rendering of Indic scripts: A generic approach. In P. Bhaskararao (ed.) Working Papers, International Symposium on Indic Scripts (pp. 263−278). Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 17−19 December 2003. Oakes, L. (2001) Language and National Identity: Comparing France and Sweden. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olson. D. (1996) The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pusch, H. (2008) Competing scripts: The introduction of the Roman alphabet in Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 191, 65−109. Rohsenow, J.R. (2004) Fifty years of script and written language reform in the P.R.C. In M. Zhou and H. Sun (eds) Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China. Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 21–43). Boston, MA/Dordrecht: Kluwer.

56

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Salomon, R. (2013) On alphabetical ordering: Some principles and problems. SCRIPTA 5, 1−20. Saussure, F. de ([1916] 1989) Cours de linguistique générale. Ed. critique par Rudolf Engler. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sawyer, J.F.A. and Simpson, J.M.Y. (2001) Concise Encyclopedia of Language and Religion. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Sohn, Ho-min (1997) Orthographic divergence in South and North Korea. In Y.K. KimRenaud (ed.) The Korean Alphabet. Its History and Structure (pp. 193−217). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Song, Ki-Joong (2011) Ancient Indian and Chinese models of sound classification and their reflections in the writing systems. Scripta 3, 25–43. TDIL (Technology Development for Indian Languages) 2008−2009. See http://www. ildc.gov.in/ (accessed on 6 June 2016). Tranter, N. (2008) Nonconventional script choice in Japan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 192, 133−151. Van der Horst, J. (2008) Het Einde van de Standaardtaal: Een Wisseling van Europese Taalcultur. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff. Van Hout, R. and Knops, U. (1988) Language Attitudes in the Dutch Language Area. Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter.

4 ‘What is Correct Chinese?’ Revisited Henning Klöter

Introduction Yuen Ren Chao (趙元任, 1892–1982) was one of China’s most eminent linguists and language planners of the 20th century. In his early career, he played an important role in the development and documentation of a standard Mandarin pronunciation, and his landmark Grammar of Spoken Chinese (Chao, 1968) is among the most frequently cited grammatical overviews of Mandarin. One of Chao’s lesser-known contributions is a brief article entitled ‘What is correct Chinese?’ (Chao, 1961), in which he reflects on correct pronunciation, the correct translation of foreign words and proper names and correctness in grammar. His analysis centres on the early 20th century when, for the first time in Chinese history, a national pronunciation standard was codified. The first part of this chapter gives a brief introduction to Chao’s work in the context of language planning in this period. I claim that during the first half of the 20th century, the two major principles of defining correctness in Chinese were established. First, correct pronunciation was defined in regional terms by declaring northern pronunciation the new standard. The emphasis lies on ‘in regional terms’ rather than on ‘northern pronunciation’, since for a linguistically diverse country covering more than twice the area of today’s European Union, the decision to base the standard language on one particular region had far-reaching consequences. Second, language correctness was established in a top-down approach through government-endorsed dictionaries. The very same mechanism remained intact after the foundation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. This brings me to the second part of this chapter, in which I apply Chao’s hypotheses concerning ‘correct Chinese’ to current language trends in the Chinese-speaking world. I will argue that language planning in China after 1949 has provided much clearer guidelines against which correctness in various areas of language use can be measured. At the same time, however, prescriptive guidelines and their implementation are subject to various challenges. 57

58

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Chinese Standards in Chao’s Childhood Years and After There is arguably no other individual whose biography and linguistic thinking is so closely linked to the notion of correct and, by implication, ‘incorrect’ Chinese as Chao Yuen Ren. In 1910, at the age of 18, Chao went to the United States to study mathematics and physics at Cornell University (the biographical details presented here are based on Wang, [1983] and LaPolla, [2006]). Chao showed an extraordinary linguistic talent as well, particularly in two respects: he was both a brilliant language learner and an excellent language analyst. Because of his English skills, he was appointed as an interpreter to the British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872−1970), when he lectured at the newly founded Peking University in 1920. When he died in 1982, Chao had a record of some 200 publications, the first being ‘The difference between psychology and the physical sciences’ (Chao, 1915), with the most important one being the landmark Grammar of Spoken Chinese of 1968 (for a full bibliography, see Dil, 1976). Chao was the first Chinese president of the Linguistic Society of America, he translated Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland into Chinese and, being a gifted musician, he composed the tune to the popular song How could I help thinking of her (教我如何不想她) in the 1930s. As a linguist, Chao was both a prescriptivist and a descriptivist. As already said, he was involved in the first attempt to implement a modern standard pronunciation; his above-mentioned Grammar of Spoken Chinese is among the best-known descriptions of Mandarin as it was spoken in Chao’s time. Chao’s family came from Chángzhōu (常州), which lies in the central eastern part of China. Today, this particular regional background would make Chao a prime suspect for being an incorrect language user. In the late 19th century, however, correctness was not as clearly defined in regional terms as it is today. Chao’s young adult years coincided with the beginnings of language standardisation in China. The decades following the establishment of the Chinese Republic in 1912 saw profound political and cultural changes. It was a period when, in the fields of language, literature and scholarship, everything associated with the Confucian tradition was radically challenged by a young counter-elite promoting ‘modern’ Western concepts, notably science and democracy. The national language movement was considered an essential part of China’s way to becoming a Republic. Until then, there had never been anything like a standard pronunciation taught in schools, used by people who had attended school and who had been corrected if considered incorrect. Now, in the early 20th century, especially in the 1920s, language planning was in the hands of a new elite made up of young Western-oriented reformers and revolutionaries, with new ideas as to where and how to define correctness in language. The issue of establishing a standard pronunciation

‘What is Correct Chinese?’ Revisited

59

took centre stage. Of course, new language ideologies and key terms, such as national language (國語, Chinese guóyǔ, Japanese kokugo), reached China from Japan. In Japan, though a few decades earlier, national language and modernisation ideologies had likewise been inspired by Western models (for details, see Heinrich, 2012). In the case of China, it could be objected that a standard pronunciation commonly known as Mandarin (guānhuà 官話) had already existed prior to the 20th century. This is certainly the case, but, as Chao pointed out in his article on correct Chinese, officials going to the court would find [a knowledge of Mandarin] useful. But a command of Mandarin during the imperial days was regarded rather as a convenience than a matter of prestige and having a southern accent was more of an inconvenience than anything to be ashamed of. (Chao, 1961: 171) It was, however, not only a matter of social prestige – or rather the lack of it – in which the Mandarin of Chao’s childhood days differed from the new pronunciation standard that was gradually codified in the years following the foundation of the Republic in 1912. More importantly, language standardisation in the early 20th century was coupled with a new conception of who should speak the standard language. Although historical research has yet to answer the question of the extent to which the codification of pronunciation came with a plan for its implementation, it is safe to claim that the new standard pronunciation was supposed to be much less elitist than Mandarin had been before the 20th century. Attempts at the codification of pronunciation in the early 20th century faced the impossible challenge of choosing between northern and southern varieties of the language (for details, see Ramsey, 1987: chapter 1). Representatives of different regions gave each other a hard time, and discussions were emotional, at times even turning violent. Eventually, the delegates of the Conference on the Unification of Pronunciation (dúyīn tǒngyī huì 讀音統一會), which was first held in 1913 (cf. Kaske, 2008: 405–408), agreed on a compromise based on northern pronunciation, to which a few southern traces were added. The obvious problem was of course that the notion of correctness consequently came to be defined on the basis of an artificial standard which lacked a natural base. This takes us back to Chao Yuen Ren, who was asked to produce sound recordings of the new standard. He later recalled ironically: Since no teacher spoke in the national pronunciation as a native, it fell upon me to make phonograph records of this standard language, to be used henceforth in all the schools. That was in fact the system of pronunciation I taught at Harvard University in 1922 when instruction

60

Part 1: General and Theoretical

in Chinese was resumed there after an interruption of forty years. But phonograph records or no phonograph records, it was found hard going to teach a language which nobody spoke. For thirteen years I was the sole speaker of this idiolect, meant to be the national language of 4, 5, or 600 million speakers. (Chao, 1961: 175) The mixed standard was codified in Guóyīn zìdiǎn (國音字典), Dictionary of National Pronunciation, which was first published in 1919. Chao’s monopoly as the sole speaker who used the national pronunciation ended in 1932, when it was unambiguously stipulated that the spoken standard was to be based on the pronunciation of Beijing. Chao was among the compilers of yet another dictionary, Guóyīn chángyòng zìhuì (國音常用字彙), National Pronunciation for Everyday Use, in which the new standard was codified. It may seem trivial to emphasise that the decision in favour of Beijing as a model of standard pronunciation implied the exclusion of other regional varieties. These had become ‘incorrect’. The consequences of this decision, however, were far-reaching and continue to have an effect on China’s language situation to the present day.

Standardisation of What? It is evident that in China during the early 20th century, correct language use very often meant correct pronunciation. In this sense, Chao’s article on correct Chinese is no exception: four and a half of the six pages it comprised deal exclusively with pronunciation. When he correlates language prestige with pronunciation, Chao places much emphasis on language history, such as when he writes about the ‘obliteration of ancient distinctions’ and ‘change from the old tradition’ (Chao, 1961: 172), and ‘changes from traditional standards’ (Chao, 1961: 173). Correctness beyond pronunciation, for example, with regard to the modern lexicon or to the formation of correct sentences, receives much less attention. It is obvious that Chao did not place much emphasis on grammatical variation. This is fully in line with his later claim that ‘one can say that there is practically one universal Chinese grammar’ (Chao, 1968: 13). This claim was later criticised by, inter alia, Matthews and Yip (2001: 266) who argue that ‘Chao’s concept of a “universal Chinese grammar” […] is now seen to be the result of several factors, including an inadequate database, politically motivated wishful thinking, and an anachronistic view of what grammar entails’. The focus on pronunciation does not imply that people in the 1920s were unaware of other fields of language standardisation. So far, however, there has been little systematic research into early attempts to establish something like prescriptivism in Chinese grammar. Generally speaking, ‘grammar’ is a very young subdiscipline in the history of

‘What is Correct Chinese?’ Revisited

61

Chinese linguistics. It was only in 1898 that the Chinese scholar Mǎ Jiànzhōng 馬建忠 (1844–1900) wrote a grammatical analysis of the classical Chinese written language, though Western missionaries had done so some 250 years earlier. The most prominent early example of a modern Chinese grammar is Lí Jǐnxī 黎錦熙 (1890–1978), New Chinese Grammar of the National Language, first published in 1924. In 20th-century chronicles of language planning in China, we find remarks such as: ‘After its publication, this book came to be widely used by schools in every region; it had a great influence on the dissemination of the vernacular language […] and the improvement of language education on elementary and intermediate levels’ (Fèi, 1997: 40). Lí Jǐnxī was a member of the preparatory Commission for the Unification of the National Language and a respected professor of linguistics at different universities. It is possibly because of this authority that great influence has been attributed to his grammar. To be sure, however, there is no study that convincingly supports the claim that the New Chinese Grammar of the National Language actually did have much influence. In Lí Jǐnxī’s days, written sources labelled ‘vernacular’ were anything but homogeneous in terms of lexicon and morphosyntax; they displayed much diversity with regard to style, the influence of regional languages and the degree of inclusion of classical elements, westernised elements or other kinds of linguistic innovation (for a detailed study, see Gunn, 1991). If the Dictionary of National Pronunciation was criticised for not having a natural language base, the same is arguably true for the New Chinese Grammar of the National Language. In brief, the 13 years between 1919 and 1932 mark the period during which correctness in pronunciation came to be defined in regional terms: the standard was based on the pronunciation of Beijing. What is more, language standardisation followed a top-down approach: the Ministry of Education announced standards that were codified in dictionaries compiled by order of the Ministry. As a hypothesis leading to the second part of this chapter, it should be added that the problem of defining correctness in a context of regional diversity was not actually resolved but evaded instead.

Correct Chinese after 1949: Old Wine in New Skins? As discussed in the first and second sections, Chao’s article on correct Chinese was published in 1961, and it largely dealt with linguistic developments that took place in the early 20th century or some 40 or 50 years before that. In the second part of this chapter, I will shift the chronological angle and take a look at what has happened in the field of language planning and language standardisation since the publication of Chao’s article, from the last 50 years until today. In very general terms, the main principles underlying language standards in China have remained

62

Part 1: General and Theoretical

stable. In terms of pronunciation, Beijing as the regional base of the standard language, which is known as Pǔtōnghuà 普通話 ‘common language’, seems to be well established. But in the first part of the 20th century, due to the political chaos that characterised this period, the Ministry of Education and other institutions were incapable of implementing any standards of language use. A crucial difference between language standardisation in the first and in the second halves of the 20th century was therefore not the standard itself, but the institutional means and to some degree the force and efficiency by which the standard was implemented. Over the past 60 years, several million prescriptive reference works have hit the shelves of China’s bookshops. China now has a functioning system of public education which includes language instruction. In other words, language planning agencies in China after 1949 have provided much clearer guidelines against which correctness in various areas of language use can be measured. In addition, it has produced much more efficient means to transport these standards into classrooms, government offices and newspaper offices. The planning and spread of Pǔtōnghuà and Chinese script reform were the two central topics in research on China’s language situation during the second half of the 20th century (Chen, 1980; Chen, 1999; Martin, 1982; DeFrancis, 1950; Serruys, 1962; Seybolt, 1979). This leads us to the question of how effective language standardisation in China has actually been. According to a survey published in 2004, only 53.06% of the population is able to communicate in Pǔtōnghuà (cf. Wáng & Yuán, 2013: 36). The modifier ‘only’ here hints at a certain disappointment on the part of those quoting the figures: Wáng Huī and Yuán Zhōngruì, two officers in the Ministry of Education. In any case, the figures were released at a time when the promotion of standard Mandarin had entered a new phase of intensification. For example, since the beginning of the 21st century, the Ministry of Education and its State Language Commission (Guójiā yǔyán wénzì gōngzuò wěiyuánhuì 国家语言文 字工作委员会) have systematically evaluated the linguistic performance of entire cities by conducting inspection tours. Since 2005, the results of these inspection tours and many other official facts and figures pertaining to China’s language situation have been published in annual language reports (Lǐ, 2005–) like the one from which the above figure of 53.06% was taken. English translations of the 2006 report were published in 2013 (Li & Li, 2013). To give an impression of what language inspection is about, I quote from the 2006 report: During the inspection, the evaluation panel check the data on language use in the above-mentioned organization, hold interviews with some of their staff members and survey the knowledge and competence in using the standard national language among students, editors, journalists,

‘What is Correct Chinese?’ Revisited

63

proofreaders, caption machine operators and employees in the advertising industry. There are also random inspections of the working language of government agencies, schools, mass media and on the use of written Chinese characters in government documents, official stamps, handouts, examination papers, newspapers and journals, blackboard writing, students’ homework, TV programs, street signs and posters. (Translation in Yú, 2013: 42–43) In 2004, 13 cities ‘reached the eligible standard of the language evaluation’ (Li & Li, 2013: 42). Eleven more cities followed suit one year later. This means, as Li and Li continue on the same page, ‘that two thirds of the primary cities in China have attained their goals in the use of the standard national language’. A few cities, like Dàlián in the north, Xīān in central China or the southern cities Guǎngzhōu and Xiàmén, do not appear in these lists, but they ‘put themselves actively in the self-evaluation’ (Li & Li, 2013: 43). In quantitative terms, these figures certainly represent significant progress compared to 80 years earlier, when Chao Yuen Ren was the sole speaker of the national language.

One (Northern) Chinese or Many Chineses? The fundamental principle of defining correctness in regional terms has remained unchanged in China. But has it meanwhile become uncontroversial? In this context it has to be kept in mind that what made Chao’s recordings and his classroom language at Harvard unique was the mixing of northern and southern elements. This mixture was the result of a low level of consensus reached in a series of turbulent meetings that had witnessed emotional outbursts by delegates representing different regions. Now things seem to be different. According to the 2006 language report, ‘Putonghua as the language of official business has […] become deeply rooted in the hearts of the people’ (Wáng & Yuán, 2013: 32). A few recent events challenge the claim that Mandarin is broadly accepted. For example, when the central government decided in 2010 that in the south-eastern province of Guangdong the number of programmes in Mandarin should be increased and the number of programmes in the local regional language Cantonese reduced, hundreds of protesters took to the street. Initially, a local TV station bluntly refused to implement the new language policy. The protests soon spread to the neighbouring city of Hong Kong (BBC News, 2010; Branigan, 2010). This is just one example which shows that the acceptance of Mandarin is not as strong as official publications claim. It also suggests that the decision taken in the 1920s to define correctness in regional northern terms has failed to produce a consensus. Instead, the regional clashes that existed prior to the 1920s continue to exist.

64

Part 1: General and Theoretical

This is not only true if we look at the tensions between so-called dialects like Cantonese, but also within Mandarin. From a sociolinguistic perspective, a crucial difference between Mandarin as it was used in the 1920s and as it is used today is that Mandarin is now the official language of three different political entities: the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Singapore. Aside from different governments and their language policies with regard to Mandarin, the question of what is correct – Mandarin – Chinese now more than ever has an international dimension: Chinese as a foreign language is rapidly entering high school curricula in the United States and Europe. As a consequence, linguists, textbook compilers and practitioners outside China have become increasingly involved in the debate as to what is correct Chinese (Everson, 2012; Swihart, 2003; Tsung & Cruickshank, 2011). In the light of these developments, it seems paradoxical that the application of the notion of pluricentricity or ‘pluricentric languages’ to Chinese has not gained any more acceptance. Clyne (1992: 1), citing Kloss (1978: 66–67), defines pluricentric languages as ‘languages with several interacting centres, each providing a national variety with at least some of its own (codified) norms’. In the case of Chinese, ‘two levels of pluricentricity’ (Clyne & Kipp, 1999: 5) have been distinguished: (1) according to regional varieties (Mandarin, Cantonese, Southern Min, etc.); and (2) according to the national variety of Mandarin in the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan and Singapore (Clyne & Kipp, 1999: 5; see also Bradley, 1992). Whether one subscribes to this particular distinction or whether one calls for a more refined definition is of secondary importance. The crucial point is that the notion of ‘pluricentric languages’ seems fully applicable to Chinese. Nonetheless, there still appears to be a general perception that correct Chinese equals northern Chinese pronunciation. Different varieties of Chinese are spoken by so-called heritage speakers in Chinese communities all over the world; in other words: outside the area of influence of Chinese language planning institutions (on Chinese as a heritage language in the US, see He & Xiao, 2008). With regard to the English-speaking world, it is widely accepted to speak of ‘Englishes’ in the plural (cf., e.g. Görlach, 1991, 1995, 1998, 2002). The analogous plural wording ‘world Chineses’, on the other hand, does not exist and the idea behind it is anything but recognised. It is not only the northern regional base that continues to be the benchmark for correctness in Chinese. Ever since the first modern language standards were codified in the early 20th century, state agencies have successfully defended their monopoly as the sole definers of correctness. An example of this top-down approach to language standardisation is China’s most important standard Dictionary of Modern Chinese, Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn (現代漢語詞典), first published in 1978. One year later, the dictionary was mentioned for the first time in the official Chinese newspaper People’s Daily (Rénmín Rìbào, 人民日报; RMRB). In a brief note published on 28 July

‘What is Correct Chinese?’ Revisited

65

1979, it says: ‘The Dictionary of Modern Chinese is for the use of readers with mid-level education and above and pays special attention to the need for language standardisation’ (RMRB, 1979). Fourteen years later, in 1993, the same newspaper claimed a world record for the Dictionary of Modern Chinese, referring to 20 million copies that had been printed since the first publication, and adding that: in terms of accuracy, standardization and authority, it has reached a very high level. It has become the most important and the principal reference work for people from all walks of life. Entries have been carefully selected, its explanations are correct, and the example phrases are concise. (RMRB, 1993) Another 11 years later, in 2004, the number of released copies had doubled to 40 million (RMRB, 2004). Edition number six appeared in 2012. This 2012 edition is especially noteworthy in the context of the present chapter, as it neatly exemplifies the tensions that arise when prescriptivism becomes intertwined with descriptivism. More than ever before, the compilers showed a ‘descriptive generosity’ towards neologisms and colloquialisms that are commonly used. Some 3000 new entries made their way into the sixth edition of the dictionary. Among these, we find many expressions reflecting China’s economic and social changes that have occurred as well as the new lifestyles that have arisen over the past 30 years. Some examples are given in Table 4.1. Many of these expressions are not actually new – they have been in common use for more than 20 years. It is also interesting to see that quite a few commonly used expressions were not selected for inclusion in the dictionary’s sixth edition, such as shèngnán 剩男 ‘leftover man’ or shèngnǚ 剩女 ‘leftover woman’ for unmarried people around the age of 30, or tóngzhì 同志, which used to be the established word for ‘comrade’, but now also refers to homosexuals. The following entries for tóngzhì in the Table 4.1 New entries in the Dictionary of Modern Chinese (6th edition, 2012) Entry 闪婚 闪离 试婚 宅男 宅女 傍大款 买官 吃回扣

English (near) equivalent shǎnhūn shǎnlí shìhūn zháinán zháinǚ bàng dàkuǎn mǎi guān chī huíkòu

whirlwind wedding whirlwind divorce trial marriage, live-in homebody, indoorsy (male) homebody, indoorsy (female) hook up with rich guys purchase/bribe an official accept an illegal commission

66

Part 1: General and Theoretical

1979 and 2012 editions, respectively, give the impression that time must have stood still: Dictionary of Modern Chinese, 2nd edition (CASS, 1979) 同志 tóngzhì “comrade” 1: a person fighting for the same ideals or the same cause, especially a member of the same political party. 2: a common form of address between people in China 【同志】tóngzhì ① 为共同的理想、事业而奋斗的人，特指同一个政党的成 员。② 我国人民之间的称呼。 Dictionary of Modern Chinese, 6th edition (CASS, 2012) 同志 tóngzhì “comrade” (noun) 1: a person fighting for the same ideals or the same cause, especially a member of the same political party. 2: a form of address commonly used among people: Female comrade | old comrade | comrade Zhāng | Comrade, what’s your name? 【同志】tóngzhì 名 ① 为共同的理想、事业而奋斗的人，特指同一个政党的 成员。② 人们惯用的彼此之间的称呼: 女～∣老～∣张～∣～,请问您贵姓? The fact that the semantic shift in tóngzhì from ‘comrade’ to ‘homosexual’ is not deemed correct usage brings me to the second reason why the dictionary’s sixth edition is different from the previous ones. Strictly speaking, it is not the edition itself, but the attention its publication has received that distinguishes it from the earlier editions. Never before did the question of entry selection generate as much public attention and discussion as this time. On 16 July 2012, the website of the official newspaper People’s Daily displayed a cartoon showing a warden at the entrance of the Dictionary of Modern Chinese depicted as a building (Yáng, 2012). Separating welcome and unwelcome entries, he tells the entry ‘leftover man’: ‘Stay out, you seem to be a little disrespectful’. The word ‘disrespectful’ alludes to a television interview with the dictionary’s chief editor Jiāng Lánshēng 江蓝生 of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), one of China’s most renowned present-day linguists. In the interview with the state channel China Central Television, Jiāng Lánshēng explained some of the principles of entry selection: We still make a value judgment about a new word and a new meaning. For example, we have selected zháinán and zháinǚ ‘homebody, indoorsy’.

‘What is Correct Chinese?’ Revisited

67

But we have not selected shèngnán ‘leftover man’ or shèngnǚ ‘leftover woman’ for people who for a variety of reasons haven’t managed to get married on time. They have different reasons, and if we treat them as leftovers, this is disrespectful from a certain perspective. That’s why we haven’t selected these words. (CCTV News, 2012) About the reason for not including tóngzhì ‘homosexual, gay person’ in the dictionary Professor Jiāng said: It is not that we do not know the new meaning of tóngzhì, but we decided not to include it. People of lower status may use whichever word they like, but we won’t put it into a standard dictionary because we don’t want to encourage such things. We don’t want to draw attention to such things. (CCTV News, 2012) The practice of the compilers, notably with respect to this particular decision, drew heavy criticism. Critical voices not only appeared in various internet forums and blogs, but also in editorials of official Chinese newspapers. One example is an editorial in the China Youth Daily, which was quoted in the online edition of the official People’s Daily. It closes with the following words: I don’t understand, as a specialist of the Chinese language, you should know that language is just a social tool for communication and has to serve every member of the society. Language by itself does not belong to a class, nor does it reflect any value orientation. It is just your task to explain clearly the form and meaning of words. (Wáng, 2012) What the sixth edition of the Modern Chinese Dictionary has produced, in other words, is one of the first public controversies about the role, method and professional self-conception of those who are officially entitled to distinguish between correct and incorrect, acceptable and unacceptable usage in the modern Chinese lexicon. The top-down approach of prescribing correctness through publications compiled by order of a state ministry, however, is still intact.

Concluding Remarks This chapter has placed prescriptivism in the context of 20th-century language planning in China. It views language planning as the attempt to disseminate correct language use within a language community. In chronological terms, language planning has been divided into two periods: the period after the founding of the Republic of China in 1912 and the period after 1949, the founding year of the People’s Republic of China. One major principle of language planning has been to define correct

68

Part 1: General and Theoretical

language use in regional ‘northern’ terms. This principle was put into practice in the first period examined here and continues to be effective in today’s language planning process. Against this backdrop, Ramsey (1987: 14) makes an important point when he argues that the national language movement before 1949 ‘under a different name weathered the Communist Revolution’. The continuity of the ‘dominance of the North’ has had far-reaching effects on the way speakers of central or southern varieties perceive their native tongues. In the words of Mair (2003), they ‘willingly accept the inferior status and deficient nature of their native forms of speech in comparison with M[odern] S[tandard] M[andarin]’. Not only the principles but also the mechanisms of language planning have remained intact throughout the two periods examined here. Before and after 1949, language planning has followed a top-down approach, and the compilation of state-sponsored dictionaries has played a major role in the dissemination of standards. A major difference between the two periods lies in the efficiency of standard language spread. In contrast to the first period, when the new language standards remained largely unknown, most Chinese language users nowadays are aware of existing language standards. The debate surrounding the sixth edition of the Dictionary of Modern Chinese is symptomatic of the fact that language users do not perceive themselves as mere targets of language policies. Therefore, we not only have to ask ‘What is correct Chinese?’ but also Who decides about correctness? It almost seems as if Chao Yuen Ren, in his article from 1961 on correct Chinese, foresaw the current debate on dictionaries and their role as tools of linguistic prescriptivism. He was more unobtrusive than many present-day bloggers and critics when he asked: Now if enough wrongs make wrong right, how many wrongs are enough? Where does one draw the line? Should the pronunciations of the half-educated have equal vote with the pronouncements of the authorities? (Chao, 1961: 174) When he wrote in the following paragraph that ‘in matters of fact, the informant is the ultimate authority’ (Chao, 1961: 174), we know what Chao’s answer to these questions would have been.

References BBC News (2010) Anger at Cantonese language switch. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/world-asia-pacific-10834595 (accessed 15 May 2013). Bradley, D. (1992) Chinese as a pluricentric language. In M. Clyne (ed.) Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations (pp. 306–324). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Branigan, T. (2010) Protesters gather in Guangzhou to protect Cantonese language. The Guardian, 25 July. See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/25/ protesters-guangzhou-protect-cantonese (accessed 15 May 2013).

‘What is Correct Chinese?’ Revisited

69

CASS (2012) Chinese Academy of Social Sciences [Zhōngguó Shèhuì Kēxuéyuàn Yǔyán Yánjiūsuǒ Cídiǎn Biānjíshì 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室/Dictionary Compilation Office, Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (ed.) Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn 现代汉语词典 [Dictionary of Modern Chinese] (6th edn). Běijīng: Shāngwù yìnshū guǎn 商务印书馆. CASS (1979) Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn 现代汉语词典 [Dictionary of Modern Chinese] (2nd edn). Běijīng: Shāngwù yìnshū guǎn 商务印书馆. CCTV News (2012) Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn dì liù bǎn 现代汉语词典第六版 [The sixth edition of the Dictionary of Modern Chinese]. CCTV 13, 15 July 2012, 10:28 am. Chao, Y.R. 趙元任 (1915) Xīnlǐxué yǔ wùzhì kēxué zhī qūbié 心理學與物質科學之區別 [The difference between psychology and the physical sciences]. Kēxué 科學 /Science 1 (1), 14–21. Chao, Y.R. 趙元任 (1961) What is correct Chinese? Journal of the American Oriental Society 81 (3), 171–177. Chao, Y.R. 趙元任 (1968) Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley University Press. Chen, J.T.S. (1980) Les Réformes de l’écriture chinoise. Paris: Institute des Hautes Études Chinoises. Chen, P. (1999) Modern Chinese: History and Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, M. (ed.) (1992) Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Clyne, M. and Kipp, S. (1999) Pluricentric Languages in an Immigrant Context: Spanish, Arabic and Chinese. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DeFrancis, J. (1950) Nationalism and Language Reform in China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dil, A.S. (1976) Bibliography of Yuen Ren Chao’s works. In A.S. Dil (ed.) Yuen Ren Chao, Aspects of Chinese Sociolinguistics. Selected and Introduced by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Everson, M.E. (2012) The preparation and development of Chinese language teachers: The era of standards. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 47 (3), 7–18. Fèi, J. 费锦昌 (ed.) (1997) Zhōngguó yǔwén xiàndàihuà bǎinián jìshì 中国语文现代化百年记事 [A Chronicle of One Hundred Years of Language Modernization in China]. Běijīng: Yǔwén chūbǎnshè 语文出版社. Görlach, M. (1991) Englishes: Studies in Varieties of English (1984–1988). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Görlach, M. (1995) More Englishes: New Studies in Varieties of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Görlach, M. (1998) Even More Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Görlach, M. (2002) Still More Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gunn, E.M. (1991) Rewriting Chinese: Style and Innovation in Twentieth-Century Chinese Prose. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. He, A.W. and Xiao, Y. (2008) Chinese as a Heritage Language: Fostering Rooted World Citizenry. Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center. Heinrich, P. (2012) The Making of Monolingual Japan: Language Ideology and Japanese Modernity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kaske, E. (2008) The Politics of Language in Chinese Education, 1895–1919. Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill. Kloss, H. (1978) Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. Düsseldorf: Schwann. LaPolla, R.J. (2006) Chao Yuen Ren (1892–1982). In K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 295–296). Oxford: Elsevier.

70

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Lí, J. 黎錦熙 (1924) Xīn zhù Guóyǔ yǔfǎ 新著國語語法 [New Chinese Grammar of the National Language]. Shanghai: Commercial Press. Lǐ, Y. 李宇明 (2005–) Zhōngguó yǔyán shēnghuó zhuàngkuàng bàogào 中国语言生活状况报告 [The Language Situation of China]. Běijīng: Shāngwù yìnshū guǎn 商务印书馆. Li, Y. and Li, W. (eds) (2013) The Language Situation in China (Language Policies and Practices in China, Volume 1: 2006–2007). Berlin/Boston, MA: de Gruyter, Beijing: Commercial Press. Mair, V.H. (2003) How to forget your mother tongue and remember your national language. See http://pinyin.info/readings/mair/taiwanese.html (accessed 15 May 2013). Martin, H. (1982) Chinesische Sprachplanung. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Matthews, S. and Yip, V. (2001) Aspects of contemporary Cantonese grammar: The structure and stratification of relative clauses. In H. Chappell (ed.) Sinitic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (pp. 266–281). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ramsey, S.R. (1987) The Languages of China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. RMRB (Rénmín Rìbào 人民日报/People’s Daily) (1979) Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn zhèngshì chūbǎn gōbgkāi fāxíng《现代汉语词典》正式出版公开发行 [Official release of the Dictionary of Modern Chinese], 28 July. RMRB (Rénmín Rìbào 人民日报/People’s Daily) (1993) Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn yǐ yìnxíng 137 cì《现代汉语词典》已印行137次 [137th print and distribution of Dictionary of Modern Chinese], 19 April. RMRB (Rénmín Rìbào 人民日报/People’s Daily) (2004) Yī shū fēngxíng sānshí nián, fāxíng tūpò sānqiānwàn: Xiàndài Hànyǔ cídiǎn cùjìn Hànyǔ guīfàn 一书风行三十年 发行突破 四千万《现代汉语词典》促进汉语规范 [One book has been popular for 30 years, more than four million copies distributed: The Dictionary of Modern Chinese promotes Chinese language standardization], 5 August. Serruys, P. (1962) Survey of the Chinese Language Reform and the Anti-Illiteracy Movement in Communist China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Seybolt, P.J. (1979) Language Reform in China: Documents and Commentary. White Plains, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Swihart, D.W. (2003) The two Mandarins: Pŭtōnghuà and Guóyŭ. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 38 (3), 103–118. Tsung, L. and Cruickshank, K. (2011) Emerging trends and issues in teaching and learning Chinese. In L. Tsung and K. Cruickshank (eds) Teaching and Learning Chinese in Global Contexts (pp. 1–10). London/New York: Continuum. Wáng, H. and Yuán, Z. (2013) The promotion of Putonghua (Mandarin Chinese): An overview. In Y. Li and W. Li (eds) The Language Situation in China (Language Policies and Practices in China, Volume 1: 2006–2007) (pp. 27–39). Berlin/Boston, MA: de Gruyter, Beijing: Commercial Press. Wang, W.S.Y. (1983) Yuen Ren Chao. Language 59 (3), 605–607. Wáng, X. 王学进 (2012) Biānxiě cídiǎn méi bìyào qiángdiào jiàzhíguān 编写词典没必 要强调价值观 ‘There’s a need to emphasise values when compiling a dictionary’. Zhōngguó Qīngnián Bào 中国青年报 /China Youth Daily, 17 July 2012. See http://news. sina.com.cn/pl/2012-07-17/051924787298.shtml (accessed 15 May 2013). Yáng, S. 杨仕成 (2012) [Untitled cartoon] Rénmín Rìbào 人民日报/ People’s Daily online edition, 16 July. See http://media.people.com.cn/n/2012/0716/c40606-18522077. html (accessed 15 May 2013). Yú, H. (2013) Evaluation of language management in China’s cities. In Li Yuming and Li Wei (eds) The Language Situation in China (Language Policies and Practices in China, Volume 1: 2006–2007) (pp. 41–55). Berlin/Boston, MA: de Gruyter, Beijing: Commercial Press.

5 The Uselessness of the Useful: Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts Felix K. Ameka

Introduction Playing on a theme of a Chinese saying related to the usefulness of the useless,1 I reflect in this chapter on the usefulness, on the one hand, of prescriptivism, and its uselessness, on the other, in language use. Prescriptivism – the specification of do’s and don’ts in language – would seem to be necessary for contributing to norms which are important for communication among members of various communities of practice. At the same time, it is problematical for maintaining the unique feature of humans – variation and diversity. As Levinson (2012: 397) puts it: ‘diversity is the most striking feature of human beings – there is no other animal on the planet, as far as we know, which has such myriad variants of form and meaning at every level in its communication system’. Arguably, the most grievous ‘sin’ of prescriptivism is that it stifles variation and kills diversity, the very unique feature of the human species. In the next section, I offer some reflections on prescriptivism in general and the mechanisms through which it is enacted. This provides the background for the cases I draw on to demonstrate the effects of prescriptivism in various minority language contexts in West Africa. In addition, I examine the complications arising from proscribing languages in various public spaces such as schools. Attitudes to prescriptivism differ depending on one’s ideology. As a field linguist engaged in the documentation and description of language use, I am concerned with and interested in describing linguistic diversity and variation in all its facets. I take as axiomatic the fact that the primary mode of communicative interaction is one in which the parties are co-present in the same location and can see each other with all its ‘chaos’ and disfluencies (Clark, 1996). In such an arena of language use, prescriptivism has a limited

71

72

Part 1: General and Theoretical

role. An attitude or ideology of linguists as eloquently expressed by John Lyons (1968: 43) decades ago is that ‘[t]he linguist’s first task is to describe the way people actually speak (and write) their language, not to prescribe how they ought to speak and write’. Lyons concedes that there might be cultural, social or political reasons for one form of prescription or another. That is, under certain conditions prescriptivism may be inevitable. Cameron (1995: v) suggests that verbal hygiene – the desire to meddle in language matters – is part of the competence of every speaker. She also points out that the anti-prescriptive stance of linguists and other language users is in some ways just the other side of the coin of prescriptivism, as both relate to norms. We will see below that even though striving for a norm seems to be a universal cognitive disposition of humans, some norm-creating practices can lead to problems for variation and affect rhetorical features of language use. One of the strong arguments for the need for prescriptivism is that in language pedagogy, prescriptive principles are necessary as they provide a reference point of best practice that language learners should aspire to. But, as I will demonstrate below, when prescriptions go against everyday linguistic practices, they tend to be detrimental and hamper the acquisition of language. Prescriptivism is also a useful tool for teachers to gauge educational achievement. In daily practice, prescriptivism does not seem to be that useful. First of all, it has been observed that those who try to enforce prescriptivism are the very people who do not observe the principles in practice. As Allan and Burridge (2006: 117) note, ‘[p]rescriptive grammarians, seeking to establish the standard often failed to conform to their own prescriptions’. They illustrate the point with the rule that the 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth insisted on: the distinction between the past tense and past participle forms of strong verbs like ride and write. In his private letters, however, Lowth would violate this principle (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2002, as quoted by Allan & Burridge, 2006: 18). In the same way, prescriptive principles are ignored by language users. Studies of actual language use in Germany, for instance, show that very few people follow the prescriptive rules. Elspaß (2005: 42) reports that ‘results from empirical studies of real language employed by the wide majority of the speakers and writers’ show that ‘prescribed linguistic norms sometimes seem to be followed by relatively few users of that language only’. This underscores the gulf between prescriptive demands or ideals and practice.

Language Standardisation and Linguistic Purism The processes of language regulation through which prescriptivism manifests itself include standardisation and linguistic purism (cf. Edwards, 2009). Standardisation involves the choice and promotion of a language

Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts

73

variety for use in formal situations. In European contexts especially, standard languages have provided a reference point for the definition of nation states. A standard gives a mark of identity to a language and imbues it with prestige – the source of its authority is regulating language use at least in formal and written contexts, if not in all contexts. In addition, the standard gives legitimacy as well as visibility to the language and leads to an artefactual ideology of language – that there is a language which users can appropriate and make their own (cf. Blommaert, 2008). ‘Standard languages are not normal states of affairs,’ Milroy (1992: 210) argues, yet through them the more normal and primary variation and variability are proscribed. Standardisation freezes languages in time and does not accommodate change, although over the years some prescriptive rules of writing in various standard languages have been reformed and some variability in spelling exists. It has often been suggested, albeit erroneously, that standardisation is a prerequisite for literacy (see Rehg [2004] for some arguments against this notion). One of the reasons for this view is that through standardisation, some forms and features of language use are prescribed to be fit or unfit to be written. The primary manifestation of this is the distinction between spoken and written language where through standardisation some prescriptions are enforced. Thus, features of everyday colloquial language use are barred. This is a source of anger for Peter Elbow (2012: 1), who writes: ‘I’ve long been angry at how our culture of “proper literacy” tells us that we are not supposed to do our serious writing in the mother tongue we know best and possess in our bones – but rather only in the prestige, correct, edited version of standardised English or what I will sometimes call “correct writing”’. Unfortunately, this constraint not only reduces the expressive power and style of the language in question but also the linguistic forms that are available as data for linguists to study. Furthermore, standard languages lead to dialect levelling through their prescriptive principles, with increasingly more speakers using the standard in all contexts at the expense of colloquial dialects. This is noticeable in various European language settings such as German (see Elspaß, 2010), but it is becoming evident in the use of standard varieties of African languages as well. Standardisation also leads to the elimination from the standard variety of colloquial forms that are undesirable from the perspective of prescriptivists. Elspaß (2005), for instance, reports this to be the case in German where double negatives and participles without a ge- prefix are kept out of the standard but are prevalent in various colloquial varieties. On the other hand, prescriptivism fails to erect a non-porous wall around a standard variety, so that colloquial features permeate its boundaries and enter it. This reflects the dynamic nature of language and, at the same time, makes the uselessness of useful prescriptive rules very evident in

74

Part 1: General and Theoretical

so-called regional standard varieties, for example, of German. As we shall see below, the prescription of lexical and grammatical forms in a standard language can have detrimental effects on schoolchildren because the forms of language they encounter outside school are the colloquial dialect forms and not the artificial standard forms based on a dialect they have never been exposed to. Prescriptivism also works through linguistic purism. Allan and Burridge (2006: 112) characterise it as a form of tabooing or prescription where the linguistic behaviour of individuals is constrained ‘by identifying certain elements in a language as “bad”. Typically, these are words and word usage that are believed to threaten the identity of the culture in question – what eighteenth-century grammarians referred to as the “genius” of the language’. Language purism is the manifestation of a desire to preserve what speakers believe to be the ‘pure’ or ‘true’ form of the language, a kind of ancestral code that should not be adulterated by foreign elements like loanwords or loan translations. Speakers tend to have negative attitudes towards loanwords, especially when they believe that there are ways of expressing the ideas in the native language. Speakers also tend to have a negative attitude towards multilingual members of the community who, while code-switching, seamlessly move between the languages in their repertoire and in the community. As we shall see below, some of the linguistic police indulge in the same practices that they think affect the pure form of the language, yet chastise others for engaging in them. In the next section, I illustrate the effects of prescriptivism on the lives of members of minority language groups in linguistically heterogeneous contexts. The first case involves the effect of prescription of lexical items in a standard language, Ewe (Kwa, Niger Congo), used as medium of instruction but which is different from the colloquial variety used in the wider community (Ewedomegbe) in Nyagbo in south-eastern Ghana. The second case involves linguistic purism behaviour in the same community. I will first provide the sociolinguistic context of language repertoires and choices in Ghana and in the Nyagbo community.

Language Repertoires and Trilingual Configuration in Ghana The Ethnologue (Lewis et al., 2014) counts 81 languages for Ghana but plots only 68 of them on the languages map. The most prestigious of these languages is Ghanaian English, 2 the official national language. Ghana is characterised by an officially recognised trilingual configuration of language use based on functional domains (Dakubu, 1997). As indicated in Table 5.1, the third language (L3) layer is filled by Ghanaian English. The second language (L2) layer is filled by languages of wider communication

Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts

75

Table 5.1 Trilingual configuration in Ghana

L1 (approx 80 languages) E.g. Hausa, Fulfulde, Ahanta, Krachi, Mampruli Nafanra, Lɛtɛ (Larteh) Dwang, Adele, Logba, Tafi, Avatime, Siwu, Tutrugbu (Nyagbo) ...

L2 (11 officially approved languages+other lingua franca) Twi (Akan), Fante (Akan), Asante (Akan), Nzema, Ga, Dangme, Ewe, Dagbani, Kasem, Gonja, Dagaare

L3 (one official and national language) (Ghanaian) English

Hausa, Ghanaian Pidgin English Source: Dakubu (1997: 33).

including the 11 officially recognised languages for use in education and in local and district administration, and other vehicular languages which lack official recognition. The latter are listed separately under the L2 heading in Table 5.1. For instance, although Hausa is used as a lingua franca and on radio and national television, it is not one of the languages that is promoted for literacy in the National Accelerated Literacy Acquisition Programme (NALAP). I have listed it in Table 5.1 both as a first language (L1) and as an L2. The other 81 languages belong to the L1 layer. The size of the linguistic repertoire of individuals depends to some extent on whether their L1 is an L2 or whether they had some schooling and acquired (Ghanaian) English, the L3. It also depends on whether speakers are resident in a rural area or an urban centre. Thus, a speaker of, for example, Twi (Akan) in a rural Twi-speaking area (or even in an urban centre in an Akan-speaking area) is likely to have one language, the L1, in their repertoire. If educated, they would add the L3 to their repertoire. Guerini (2007) surveyed the language attitudes of 90 students of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ghana, Legon-Accra. With respect to their linguistic repertoires, Guerini (2007: 10) commented that ‘on average, the individual linguistic repertoire of non-Akan native speakers tends to be more complex than the repertoire of their Akan native speakers counterparts’. By contrast, individuals from minority language communities tend to have at least an L1 and an L2, the language of wider communication, and with schooling add the L3. In such communities, there tends to be a relatively ‘stable’ triglossic relationship among the languages (Johnson, 1975). As will be noted below, members of the Nyagbo community in south-eastern Ghana like other minority languages have Nyagbo (autonym Tutrugbu) as an L1, Ewe, the regional language of wider communication, as an L2, and English as an L3, if they have been to school. Some Nyagbo

76

Part 1: General and Theoretical

speakers may also have a variety of Akan in their repertoire. These people largely conform to Laitin’s (1992) formula of 3 + 1 languages in the repertoire of Ghanaians. This means that many Ghanaians would command an L1, a lingua franca and English, and many of them will have more than one language of wider communication. To understand the linguistic varieties in the Nyagbo township, we need to look at the dialectal situation in Ewe – the L2 of Nyagbo speakers.

The Sociolinguistic Context of Nyagbo Ewe varieties Ewe, a major dialect cluster, belongs to the Gbe group of languages (Kwa, Niger-Congo) spoken in the Gulf of Guinea. Ewe dialects are spoken in the area between the Atlantic Coast and 8°N, and from the Volta River in south-eastern Ghana across into southern Togo and just across the Togo– Benin border. Dialect variation among the Ewe lects is enormous, so that groups of villages only two or three kilometres apart use distinct varieties (see e.g. Ameka, 2001). These local dialects may be grouped geographically into southern dialects with clusters of varieties such as Anlo (Aŋlɔ) and Tongu (Tɔŋú); central dialects, comprising lects spoken in places like Ho, Kpedze and Dodome; and northern dialects, covering varieties spoken in Peki, Hohoe, Gblede, Ve, Anfoe and Kpando, in Ghana and Kpalime and Tomegbe in Togo (Afeli, 1978; Ansre, 2000). The northern and central dialects collectively are indigenously called Ewedomegbe, i.e. (western) interior Ewe dialects (Westermann, 1930: 191). In addition, there is a standard Ewe dialect designed by 19th-century missionaries, a hybrid based on the Anlo dialect together with features incorporated from the inland dialects (Ansre, 1971). Thus, standard Ewe ‘does not correspond in all aspects with any single dialect. Speakers tend to use it for public and other formal occasions, and revert to a colloquial dialect for day-to-day purposes’ (Clements, 1972: 21). There is a diglossic relation between standard Ewe (spoken with local accents) and local colloquial dialects. As will be shown below, Ewe L2 speakers tend to use the colloquial variety in the locality but are compelled to use the standard for educational purposes with its attendant difficulties.

Nyagbo language in context Nyagbo is surrounded by Ewe towns to the south, east and west and by Tafi, a closely related Ghana-Togo mountain language, to the north. Essegbey (2010) reports that every native speaker of the language in the nine Nyagbo townships, from the age of four onwards, speaks Ewe in addition to Nyagbo. The Ewe used there is a colloquial variety

Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts

77

of Ewedomegbe (inland Ewe) spoken in the surrounding Ewe villages. In school, standard Ewe is used at all levels, from kindergarten onwards, instead of Nyagbo. Both colloquial and standard Ewe varieties are also used in church. Commercial transactions are in colloquial Ewe, as the closest major market where people buy and sell farm produce is at Kpeve, a Ewe-speaking area. There is a small health post in one of the Nyagbo towns staffed by people who speak only Ewe and English. For more serious illnesses, they go to Have, another Ewe-speaking town. Moreover, the district administration centre is situated in an Ewe-speaking town, Hohoe. The villages are referred to officially, as well as locally, by Ewe or Akan toponyms even though they have Nyagbo names. Nyagbo personal names are not used either, their Ewe, Akan and English counterparts being prevalent within the community. Ewe is used as a lingua franca in the community to accommodate to Ewe-speaking settlers who participate in the social, religious, educational and economic life of the people. There is an asymmetrical relation between the languages in the community as Ewe speakers do not acquire Nyagbo while their Nyagbo neighbours do acquire Ewe. The use of Ewe in some spheres is for ease of communication, while in education it is adapted by formal prescription from the government. The current policy on language in education in Ghana is that in the first years of primary education, children should be taught in one of the 11 approved languages (see e.g. Owu-Ewie, 2006; Anyidoho, 2012; Ansah, 2014; Ahadzi et al., forthc.). As Ewe is widely available in the community, Nyagbo children are taught in Ewe from kindergarten onwards. This would itself not be a problem were the Ewe language variety used in school the same as the one used locally. As noted above, standard Ewe, the language used in textbooks and in education, is a hybrid based on various dialects but mainly on the southern dialect of Anlo. In the standard dialect, various lexical items are prescribed even for everyday objects, but the use of other dialect synonyms is condemned. Nyagbo children are socialised early on into using the Ewedomegbe variants, but when they enter school they are told that the words are wrong and are compelled to use other words. The seriousness of the situation is illustrated by an interaction during a Class 1 (age six) Ewe lesson.3 In the Ewe lesson book a picture of a pineapple is shown with, as its label, the prescribed standard Ewe form atɔ ́tɔ ́. One child objected that that was not the name of the fruit, providing the dialect synonym of brandé, as he put it in Ewedomegbe:4 (1) brandɛ́ pineapple ‘brandé’

mí-yɔ́ -ɔ́ 1PL-call-HAB we call

nɛ̂ DAT: 3SG it.

78

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Brandé is indeed the name for pineapple in inland Ewe varieties used in the Nyagbo area. There are other inland Ewe dialect synonyms for the same fruit, namely (cf. Ansre, 2000: 25) abablé (Common Ewedomegbe), abeblé (Peki), abamblé (Ho), ablendi ́ (Kpando) and blandé/brandé (Anfoega, Vakpo), none of which resemble standard Ewe atɔ ́tɔ .́ Children are therefore only first confronted with the word in school. In human rights terms, when applied to language use in education policies, the use of unfamiliar forms of language in education is a violation of these children’s linguistic human rights (see e.g. Babaci-Wilhite et al., 2012). Nyagbo children’s educational rights are therefore violated on two counts: first by the non-use of Nyagbo in education, and second by the enforcement of prescriptions in an unfamiliar variety of a language that they have only some familiarity with. Ewe language teachers and examiners adopt a puristic attitude towards the use of standard Ewe in schools, without recognising colloquial dialectal forms. Moreover, in the case of brandé ‘pineapple’, the word deviates from the native phonotactics, betraying it as a borrowed word. The second consonant in a CC onset cluster is [l] if the first consonant is bilabial, labio-dental or velar, and [r] if it is any other consonant. One would therefore have expected blandé instead of brandé. Incidentally, as one can see in the dialect synonyms listed above, some dialects have nativised the word and use blandé. The word brandé/blandé is borrowed from Akan. The Anlo word, however, sounds more native and is therefore prescribed. To avoid confusing children in this way and impacting negatively on their educational development, the standard language should allow more variation. Prescriptions of right and wrong, correct and authentic forms should be eliminated, and dialect variants admitted.

Linguistic purism in Nyagbo As noted above, Cameron (1995: x) suggests that verbal hygiene, which might also be defined as the desire to protect a certain form of one’s language (cf. Cameron, 1995: section 1), is part of the linguistic competence of every speaker. This may be so, but there are some speakers who make themselves arbiters of proper language use. The idea that a ‘pure’ form of the language must be used prevails in minority language communities concerned with maintaining an almost uncontaminated form of the language. Part of the reason for wishing to do so is also that there is individual as well as societal multilingualism in these communities, while languages are in contact and influence each other, resulting in codemixing. In such a situation, many speakers become intent on preserving the ancestral code devoid of any ‘foreign’ matter. They frown upon the use of loanwords, especially when they believe that their language has native terms for the same concepts. These attitudes come to the fore in language

Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts

79

documentation practices pointing to the uselessness of prescriptivism, especially targeted at linguistic purism. Essegbey (2006) recounts the following experience during his language documentation project among the Nyagbo: The adult language is […] full of a mixture of Ewe lexical items and structure. While one of my language consultants helped me with the transcription of a discussion on palm-wine tapping, she complained that the narrator’s utterances were too full of Ewe words and structures. Interestingly, she herself had used a number of the expressions in an earlier discussion, and it was only when I played the recording back to her that she remarked that those were the expressions most commonly used in the area but ‘they are not Nyagbo’. (Essegbey, 2006: 8) Excerpts from the text as transcribed are given below, with the ‘foreign’ Ewe elements in boldface. Examples (2) and (4) contain the connectives gaké and aló, which are readily borrowable (Matras & Sakel, 2007; Aikhenvald & Dixon, 2006). In (2) and (6), we see intensifiers which also diffuse easily. Example (5) includes a borrowed noun which entered Nyagbo via Ewe but is itself a borrowing in Ewe (see e.g. Dzameshie, 1996). In (3) there is a borrowed verb, and in (7) there is an ideophonic word for ‘speed’ that is also perceived to be of Ewe origin. (2) gaké but

gɛ REL

i-wulu 1SG-blow

kɛlɛ́ that

ko- ɔ still-TP

nɔ́ TP

‘but as I blow on it’ (Making-Palm-Wine-July-17-2007.030) (3) ɔ-mɔ 2SG-see

sɛ COMP

a-yɔrɔ 3SG-wilt

‘when you see that it’s wilted’ (Making-Palm-Wine-July-17-2007.053) (4) aló or

ɔ-mɔ 2SG-see

sɛ COMP

a-kpâ 3SG-be.dry

nɔ́ TP

‘or when you see that it is dried’ (Making-Palm-Wine-July-17-2007.054) (5) kráńtɛ cutlass

hohoe big

ɔ-bɔ-lɔkɔ plǔ 2SG-FUT-take

bu-lí-ɛ́ wash

‘a big cutlass is what you will (Making-Palm-Wine-July-17-2007.058) (6) o-bo-bú 2SG-FUT-remove

bu-plukpá CM-book

use

a-lɛ AM-this

nɔ́ CM-palm.tree-DEF to

clear

the

pétéé all

‘you will remove all the bark’ (Making-Palm-Wine-July-17-2007.062)

DEF branches’

80

Part 1: General and Theoretical

(7) ɛ-ba-kɔ́ 3SG-FUT-give

sɛ COMP

bu-lí-ɛ́ CM-palm.tree-DEF

ba-bí kábá FUT-be.cooked quickly

‘it will make the wine ready quickly’ (Making-Palm-Wine-July-17-2007.096)

The next set of examples illustrates a phenomenon in the adult language which, when observed in the speech of younger speakers, is frowned upon. In (8), we have the use of an ordinal from Ewe, and in (9) the phonological word ebeteŋu is a mixture of Nyagbo and Ewe. As we shall see below, the younger generation of Nyagbo speakers use such hybrids to express ordinals. (8) o-zi CM-hole ɔ-bɔ-bhɛtɛ 2SG -FUT-do

a-lɛ CM-this

o-bo-pú 2SG-FUT-puncture

ɔ-lɛ CM-3SG

bhúlí small

nɛ́ LOC

gbá ̃ first

kɛlɛ́ there

gbá ̃ first

‘The hole that you will bore first, you will make it small first’ (Making-Palm-Wine-July-17-2007.068) (9) bu-lí-ɛ́ CM-palm.tree – DEF zɛzɛ̌ ̃ one

e-be-téŋú AM-FUT-be.capable

a-zã SCONN-remain

wole month

a-vɛ-nɔ SCONN-go-COMITATIVE

‘The palm tree could stay (continue producing wine) for a month’ (Making-Palm-Wine-July-17-2007.077)

Even though adults also produce hybrids like the one in (9), they complain about the code-mixing of the younger generation especially when forms occur in one word. The younger generation’s ordinals are formed by adding the Ewe ordinal suffix to the Nyagbo number word. Adults expect younger speakers to use the authentic Nyagbo forms as shown in column 4 in Table 5.2. The fear is that the ‘pure’ Nyagbo forms would disappear, giving way to the mixed impure forms. Table 5.2 Ordinals in language varieties English

Mixed Nyagbo-Ewe

Ewe

Authentic Nyagbo

Seventh Eighth Ninth

gene-líá tãsẽ -líá zhita-líá

adré-líá enyí-líá asíéke-líá

e-gegene-mi a-nyese-mi e-zhita-mi

These prescriptive and puristic behaviours are a manifestation of the desire to create norms. In the next section, I will discuss another form of linguistic

Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts

81

purism in the context of literacy events and its consequences for language use and linguistic analysis.

Humans as Normative Animals One aspect of the verbal hygiene component of the competence of speakers is effectively derived from the norm-creating nature of humans. Psycholinguistic studies have shown that humans are norm-creating animals (e.g. McQueen, 2007). This normative attitude manifests itself when new writers engage in their earliest literacy event of transforming spoken language to written text. Haviland (1996) describes this process for speakers of Tzotzil, a Mayan language of Mexico, who had no exposure to literacy traditions transforming spoken Tzotzil to writing. The characteristics he notes resonate with the practices of many new writers in small oral cultures (see also Mosel, 2008 and Crane, 2009). Haviland indicates that in the process of writing down recorded spoken Tzotzil, the speakers normalised the pragmatic features of the original speech context. For instance, they eliminated evidentiality indicating particles so that the way in which the speaker of the text got their information is absent from the written version. The new writers also smoothened the turn structure and interactional features of the spoken form. In other words, the overlaps and all the interactional devices used in co-present spoken communication were not converted into writing. Important devices in such communication are attitudinal and interactional particles, which were all eliminated. In addition, the production, reception and grammatical infelicities of the spoken form were purged from the written form, with false starts, hesitations and repetitions being eliminated. The writers also searched for an appropriate register for the text, which was manifested in their avoidance of archaic and ideophonic words as well as in eliminating stylistic features. They also adjusted the referential focus of the text and changed the pronominal reference in the spoken form to suit the text development in the written form. The main thing about these new Tzotzil literacy practitioners is that they had not been exposed to any literacy tradition, nor had they been instructed to transform speech to writing in any particular way. Yet, they exhibited norm-creating behaviour, demonstrating that ‘verbal hygiene’ is part of a speaker’s competence. Most of such tendencies reflect prescriptive attitudes and linguistic purism. These speakers have ideas of what is fit to be written and what is not. One of the effects of this is that the written form is devoid of the very forms of language that are the meat of rhetoric and spice of language use and communication: evidential and interactional particles, expressive words like ideophones and stylistic devices like repetitions and parallelisms. There is a significant consequence for the discipline of linguistics in all

82

Part 1: General and Theoretical

this; this prescriptive and puristic behaviour removes critical elements from the data that is greatly needed for our investigations of the nature of humans through language. Sooner or later, we get into a circular argument: certain forms of language are not found in writing, but who removed them in the first place? This example is meant to illustrate the norm-creating nature of humans which is at the basis of linguistic purism – a mechanism through which prescriptivism is manifested. This can be interpreted as the development of stylistic norms which can be seen as an enrichment of linguistic diversity, rather than as a negative consequence of prescriptive behaviour. 5 It is indeed the addition of a new register (cf. Foley, 2003). However, when this new register in the written medium over time becomes the preferred variety used in the community, then we are left with an impoverished form of the language rather than a rhetorically rich form. This is the longterm impact of literacy practices on oral communication as is evident and reported for many languages.

Code Choice Regulations In this last section, I will look at prescriptivism as it applies to the regulation of languages that can be used in various domains. The very idea of an official language being used in the domains of government, business or education is a form of prescriptivism on language use. As noted above in the context of Ghana (and for many other multilingual countries in the Global South), English is prescribed as the official language. Apart from such official prescriptions, there are also ‘local’ regulations as to when particular languages are not to be used, in the home, for instance. Particularly in minority language communities, parents may insist on the use of only the local community language at home to the exclusion of other available languages. The motivation for such prescription is language maintenance and transmission. The home tends to be the only domain where the minority language may be used. Dingemanse (2011) reports on the experience of a Siwu-speaking family, from south-eastern Ghana. Siwu is a member of the NA-Togo subgroup of the Ghana-Togo mountain languages. The NA-Togo branch is a sister branch to the KA-Togo subgroup to which Nyagbo belongs. The sociolinguistic context of Siwu is very similar to that of Nyagbo sketched above. The Siwu family’s father, who lived in Accra, narrated the following: One day in Accra, my daughter came home from school and talked to me in English. I said, ‘I no be hear English. In my home, we speak Siwu.’ My daughter said, ‘But the teacher has said that we should not speak Vernacular at home!’ Vernacular! Vernacular! By that he

Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts

83

Figure 5.1 Classroom door in Akpafu (picture by Mark Dingemanse)

means any local language other than English. So I said to her: ‘Siwu is my language. In my home we speak Siwu! At school you can speak English!’ She started shivering and crying, because the teacher had threatened children who spoke Vernacular. So he had put her in fear. But I said to her: ‘If you do not speak Siwu to me in my home, I will not pay your school fees!’ Now that she is grown up, she boasts that she can speak Siwu fluently even though she grew up in Accra. Many of her cousins don’t hear Siwu at all. (Dingemanse, 2011) The experience illustrates a number of things: the teacher tried to regulate language use at home, while the father protested. Both language regulators used threats to enforce their prescriptions. But the tension between home and school is also evident. While this event occurred in Accra, in a Siwu territory called Akpafu in south-eastern Ghana, a similar tension between home and school language use is at play. As the inscription on a classroom door shows, Siwu, the language of the community, is proscribed in the classroom (Figure 5.1). The proscription of ‘vernacular’ languages from schools is an age-old practice in Africa dating from colonial times. Prescriptions are accompanied by different sanctions, many of them humiliating for the pupils. In many anglophone countries, schoolchildren who are caught speaking the vernacular are made to either wear dirty sacks, as in Uganda, or aprons or placards with inscriptions such as ‘Shame on me, I was speaking vernacular!’ or ‘I am a dunce, I cannot speak English!’. That pupils continue to flout the prescriptions in practice shows the uselessness of such regulations. In a multilingual context, this kind of language

84

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Figure 5.2 Signs proscribing the use of Pidgin in Cameroon

regulation reinforces the prestige of the official language used in education, in the case of anglophone Africa, English, at the same time engendering a negative attitude towards the other languages in the community. In this as in the other cases discussed here, prescriptivism can have detrimental effects on speakers of minority languages. A final example of the prohibition of the vernacular, this time outside the classroom, may be found in Figure 5.2, which shows two pictures of signs I encountered on a university campus in Cameroon. The signs spell out why students should not speak Pidgin, a vehicular language as well as the L1 of many Cameroonians (Anchimbe, 2013). As the signs reveal, speaking Pidgin is discouraged for the same reason that the vernacular is not allowed in the classroom: it will affect students’ performance in English. The most fascinating thing about these signs is that they are ignored. Students gather in places on the campus around these signs and interact loudly and uninhibitedly in Pidgin, thus illustrating once more the uselessness of prescriptivism.

Some Concluding Remarks This chapter has been concerned with showing that prescriptivism may be desirable in language pedagogy, and that it may be an aspect of the competence of normal speakers of any language. It may also be an integral part of the norm-creating nature of humans. Nevertheless, prescriptivism seems to be useless when it comes to actual language use. In particular, the two sides of prescriptivism, standardisation and linguistic purism, threaten the unique feature of the human species: linguistic diversity. Prescriptivism is a menace to the soul of language. We can arrest this threat if we embrace variation fully and incorporate it into all accounts of language use. Standard languages should be developed in a way that allows for multiple voices and variation. Language use at home, in school and in public spaces should allow for multiple varieties to

Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts

85

be used in order for the full benefits of multilingualism and multilectalism to be exploited. The consequences of multilingual language use such as code-switching, code-mixing, borrowing and loan translation give rise to the dynamism of language. It is futile to use prescriptivism to halt such change, because the agents of the change continue to flout and violate the language regulations.

Notes (1)

The cultural logic behind the saying may be seen in this dialogue: Hui Tzu (HT) to Chuang Tzu (CT): ‘Your teachings are of no practical use’. CT: ‘Only those who already know the value of the useless can be talked to about the useful. This earth we walk upon is of vast extent, yet in order to walk a man uses no more of it than the soles of his two feet will cover. But suppose one cut away the ground round his feet till one reached the Yellow Springs, could his patches of ground still be of any use to him for walking?’ HT: ‘They would be of no use’. CT: ‘So then the usefulness of the useless is evident’ (Fortes, 1945: vi, cited in Owusu, 1978: 310). (2) The default language in Parliament is Ghanaian English, but in 1995 a standing order was enacted where parliamentarians can use a subset of the L2s, if there are adequate interpreting services. It is significant that no parliamentarian has availed themselves of this provision yet (Owusu-Ansah & Torto, 2013: 68). (3) I am very grateful to Margaret Ansre for reporting the interaction to me. I am also grateful to Kofi Dorvlo who reported similar difficulties of inland Ewe-speaking schoolchildren in Sokode in understanding spoken Anlo stories. (4) The following abbreviations are used in interlinear glosses: 1=first person; 2=second person; 3=third person; AM=agreement marker; CM=(noun) class marker; DAT=Dative preposition; DEF=definiteness marker; FUT=future; HAB=habitual; LOC=locative preposition; PL=plural; SCONN=serial connective; SG=singular. (5) I am grateful to one of the reviewers of this chapter for pointing this out to me.

References Afeli, K.A. (1978) Essai d’une analyse phonologique de l’Ewedomegbe (Ewe de l’Interieur) [Towards a Phonological Analysis of Ewedomegbe (Inland Ewe)]. PhD thesis, Université de la Sorbonne-Nouvelle, Paris III. Ahadzi, S., Ameka, F.K., and Essegbey, J. (2015) Language use at home and performance in English composition in multilingual Ghana. Afrikanistik Aegyptologie Online. See https://www.afrikanistik-aegyptologie-online.de/archiv/2015/4216/ (accessed 31 July 2015). Aikhenvald, A.Y. and Dixon, R.M.W. (2006) Grammars in Contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allan, K. and Burridge, K. (2006) Forbidden Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ameka, F.K. (2001) Ewe. In J. Gary and C. Rubino (eds) Facts about the World’s Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World’s Major Languages Past and Present (pp. 207−213). New York: HW Wilson Press. Anchimbe, E.A. (2013) Language Policy and Identity Construction: The Dynamics of Cameroon’s Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

86

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Ansah, G.N. (2014) Re-examining the fluctuations in language in education policies in post-independence Ghana. Multilingual Education 4 (12), 1−15. Ansre, G. (1971) Language standardization in sub-Saharan Africa. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics: Volume 7: Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 680–698). The Hague: Mouton. Ansre, G. (2000) The Ewe language. In K. Gavua (ed.) A Handbook of Eweland. Volume 2: The Northern Ewes in Ghana (pp. 680–698). Accra: Woeli. Anyidoho, A. (2012) First language in the education of the child in multilingual Ghana revisited. In H. Lauer and K. Anyidoho (eds) Reclaiming the Human Sciences and Humanities through African Perspectives (Vol. 2) (pp. 1503−1518). Accra: Subsaharan Publishers. Babaci-Wilhite, Z., Geo-JaJa, M.A. and Lou, S. (2012) Education and language: A human right for sustainable development in Africa. International Review of Education 58 (5), 619–647. Blommaert, J. (2008) Artefactual ideologies and the textual production of African languages. Language & Communication 28 (4), 291−307. Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge. Clark, H.H. (1996) Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clements, G.N. (1972) The verbal syntax of Ewe. PhD thesis, University of London. Crane, T. (2009) Narrative structuring (and restructuring) in Totela: A group study of tense-aspect in the field. In P.K. Austin, O. Bond, M. Charette, D. Nathan and P. Sells (eds) Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 2 (pp. 61–71) London: SOAS. Dakubu, M.E.K. (1997) Korle Meets the Sea: A Sociolinguistic History of Accra. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dingemanse, M. (2011) Curse or blessing? Africa’s linguistic heritage in the 21st century. A plenary lecture delivered at the Africa Study Day of the Netherlands Association for African Studies (NVAS) Berg-en-Daal, Afrika Museum. See http://ideophone. org/nvas-plenary-slides/ (accessed 14 November 2014). Dzameshie, A.K. (1996) The social dynamics of lexical borrowing. Legon Journal of the Humanities 9, 141−156. Edwards, J. (2009) Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elbow, P. (2012) Vernacular Eloquence. What Speech can Bring to Writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Elspaß, S. (2005) Language norm and language reality. Effectiveness and limits of prescriptivism in New High German. In N. Langer and W.V. Davis (eds) Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages (pp. 20–45). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Elspaß, S. (2010) Regional standard variation in and out of grammarians’ focus. In A.M. Lenz and A. Plewnia (eds) Grammar between Norm and Variation (pp. 127−144). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Essegbey, J. (2006) The Documentation of Nyagbo. A Project Proposal. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Essegbey, J. (2010) Locative expression in Tutrugbu: Losing typological characteristics due to contact. Journal of West African Languages 37 (1), 93−118. Foley, W.A. (2003) Genre, register and language documentation in literate and preliterate communities. Language Documentation and Description 1, 85–98. Fortes, M. (1945) The Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi. London: Oxford University Press. Guerini, F. (2007) Multilingualism and language attitudes in Ghana: A preliminary survey. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Bilingualism (ISB6), University of Hamburg (Germany), 29 May−2 July 2007. See http://www.ethnorema.it/pdf/ numero%204/03%20Articolo%201%20Guerini.pdf?origin=publication_detail (accessed 15 December 2014).

Language Standardisation and Variation in Multilingual Contexts

87

Haviland, J.B. (1996) Text from talk in Tzotzil. In M. Silverstein and G. Urban (eds) Natural Histories of Discourse (pp. 45–78). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Johnson, B.C. (1975) Stable triglossia at Larteh, Ghana. In R.K. Herbert (ed.) Patterns in Language, Culture, and Society: Sub-Saharan Africa. Working Papers in Linguistics No. 19, 93−102. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics. Laitin, D.D. (1992) Language Repertoires and State Construction in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S.C. (2012) The original sin of the cognitive sciences. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (3), 396–403. Lewis, M.P., Simons, G.F. and Fennig, C.D. (eds) (2014) Ethnologue: Languages of the World (17th edn). Dallas, TX: SIL International. See http://www.ethnologue.com (accessed 5 December 2014). Lyons, J. (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matras, Y. and Sakel, J. (eds) (2007) Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. McQueen, J.M. (2007) Eight questions about spoken-word recognition. In M.G. Gaskell (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 37–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press Milroy, J. (1992) Linguistic Variation and Change: On the Historical Sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Mosel, U. (2008) Putting oral narratives into writing – experiences from a language documentation project in Bouganville, Papua New Guinea. See http://www. isfas.uni-kiel.de/de/linguistik/mitarbeiter/mosel/publications_mosel/Oral%20 narratives%20into%20writing.pdf (accessed 30 November 2014). Owu-Ewie, C. (2006) The language policy of education in Ghana: A critical look at the English-only language policy of education. In J. Mugane, J.P. Hutchison and D.A. Worman (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 76–85). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. See www.lingref.com, document #1298 (accessed 11 March 2014). Owusu, M. (1978) Ethnography of Africa: The usefulness of the useless. American Anthropologist 80 (2), 310−334. Owusu-Ansah, L.K. and Torto R.T. (2013) Communication of language attitudes: An exploration of the Ghanaian situation. The International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World 2 (1), 65–87. See http://www.ijllalw.org/ JANUARYISSUEFULL.pdf#page=66 (accessed 12 December 2014). Rehg, K.L. (2004) Linguists, literacy, and the law of unintended consequences. Oceanic Linguistics 43 (2), 498–518. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2002) Robert Lowth and the strong verb system. Language Sciences 24 (3), 459–469. Westermann, D.H. (1930) A Study of the Ewe Language. London: Oxford University Press.

6 Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language Katja Lochtman

Introduction To Belgian students who study German language and literature programmes at university (here referred to as Auslandsgermanistik), German is a foreign language (GFL). In such a language learning context, language errors are mostly viewed as deviations from the standard target language. For German, this target language is still the written variety. The existence of a standard colloquial variety for German is much debated in the field of applied linguistics (Durrell, 2004, 2012). Hence, language errors are often defined in relation to the linguistic norm and solely in terms of grammatical accuracy. From an academic point of view, however, a distinction has to be made between a linguistic and a sociolinguistic norm. While the linguistic norm refers to the language system in terms of grammar rules and the standard lexicon, sociolinguistics is concerned with language behaviour and written and spoken language varieties in both formal and informal settings. From the latter perspective, language errors are defined in terms of inappropriate language behaviour. The present chapter discusses the norm perceptions of GFL (i.e. advanced) university students. Such perceptions include attitudes towards language varieties and language change. Language learners will have to learn to accept that language norms are relative concepts: today’s errors could be tomorrow’s standard (Glück & Sauer, 1997). In order to investigate the GFL university students’ perceptions of the linguistic norm, 31 bachelor and 14 master students majoring in German linguistics and literary studies from both the Université Libre de Bruxelles and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel were asked in 2009 to write down their points of view concerning their norm perceptions in the form of narratives. The starting point for their discussions was a column on popular language use in Spiegel Online by the language critic and stand-up comedian Bastian Sick. In his column, Sick criticises and mocks ‘language 88

Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language

89

errors’ made by native speakers in all kinds of daily situations such as ordering a coffee in a coffee shop or asking for advice in a clothes shop. The results of a discourse analysis of the students’ narratives indicate that foreign language students still have a rather traditional and prescriptive view on grammar and language learning. Language errors are almost solely understood as a function of grammatical accuracy, which refers to a rather strict adherence to the codified norms of formal written standard German. This contrasts with a sociolinguistic point of view (Lochtman, 2012), which does not necessarily condone grammatical errors, but accepts the reality of variation.

Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Norms In the field of variational linguistics, a distinction is made between multiple spoken and written language varieties, the use of which is determined by situational aspects such as the topic under discussion, place, time, setting, circumstances and interlocutors. For example, a conversation with a friend requires language behaviour that is different from a conversation with an employer. This is linked to the concept of register. Halliday defines register as ‘language variety according to use’ as opposed to the term dialect, which he defines as ‘language variety according to user’ (Halliday et al., 1973: 87). Whereas the linguistic norm refers to the language system found in grammar books and dictionaries, the sociolinguistic norm is concerned with choosing the appropriate register. Language errors are then defined in terms of using an inappropriate language variety. The question therefore is how such a perception of the norm can be introduced into GFL pedagogy, where spoken registers and informal language styles have traditionally been neglected in favour of the written standard (Durrell, 2012; Neuland, 2009). The concept of register comprises three categories, field, mode (medium) and tenor of discourse. Field refers to the fact that speakers need different words to talk about different topics, e.g. football, politics, cooking or fashion. Mode basically refers to whether or not a text is spoken or written, while tenor, a term used by Gregory and Carroll (1978), or style (Halliday et al., 1973), refers to the level of formality of language (Lochtman & Kappel, 2008: 58). The term register suggests that a relationship between a given situation and the language used in that situation is close enough to allow speakers to clearly identify it. Being able to do so is part of their sociolinguistic competence. But, although situations may be fairly easily recognised according to field, mode/medium and tenor/style, foreign language students often experience difficulties in adapting their language use accordingly. This might also influence their perception of linguistic norms, especially in spoken and informal language use, varieties often neglected in GFL classrooms (Durrell, 2012; Neuland, 2009).

90

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Medium differences have often been said to go hand in hand with formality choices (see Gramley & Pätzold, 1992; Lochtman & Kappel, 2008: 68). Speech is often thought of as more informal while writing is seen as more formal. This is most likely also the reason that foreign language users generally feel that it is possible to be more informal in speech than in writing, while speech is never as formal as writing (Biber, 1988). But there are also contexts where writing shows the relationship between interlocutors to be informal, as in a chat conversation. That is because electronic means of communication have now made it possible to use speech when people are separated by distance in space or time. Technological developments with respect to online communication such as chatting on the internet, email, twittering and texting enable interlocutors to use writing in new ways, some of which are very informal. Chatting on the internet, for example, approaches the same constraints imposed by real-time production in speech. These new developments might also influence foreign language students’ perception of the linguistic norm. A distinction has to be made between linguistic and communicative or sociolinguistic competence. Linguistic competence development is concerned with prescriptive norms, related to linguistic accuracy and to the definition of error as grammatical or lexical mistakes. These norms are still prevalent in a GFL context. Accuracy in language learning, however, can also be defined in terms of acceptability and appropriateness (Kleppin, 1998). Acceptability is concerned with learners’ utterances that are grammatically faultless but artificial. Every foreign language teacher recognises the situation where students have to be informed that their utterance is grammatically correct while a native speaker would never speak or write in such a way and that therefore their utterance is not acceptable. Appropriateness, on the other hand, is determined by sociolinguistic norms. However, Ellis (2008) rightly concludes that one important factor in learners’ sociolinguistic competence is their linguistic competence: learners cannot construct native-speaker-type discourse if they do not have the linguistic skills required. Similar to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), sociolinguistic competence can also be viewed as the language component of intercultural competence (see also Byram, 1997; Lochtman & Kappel, 2008). In this sense the framework states: Sociolinguistic competence is concerned with the knowledge and skills required to deal with the social dimension of language use. As was remarked with regard to sociocultural competence, since language is a sociocultural phenomenon, much of what is contained in the Framework, particularly in respect of the sociocultural, is of relevance to sociolinguistic competence. The matters treated here are those specifically relating to language use and not dealt with

Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language

91

elsewhere: linguistic markers of social relations; politeness conventions; expressions of folk-wisdom; register differences; and dialect and accent. (CEFR, 2001: 118) Linguistic markers of social relations are concepts such as greetings, forms of address, conventions for turn-taking and what CEFR (2001: 119) calls ‘expletives;’ (e.g. Dear, oh dear!, Oh my God!, Bloody Hell!). Within the category of politeness conventions, CEFR (2001: 119−120) distinguishes four components: positive politeness, negative politeness, the appropriate use of please and thank you and impoliteness (Lochtman & Kappel, 2008: 50–51). By ‘register differences’, CEFR refers to levels of formality. Expressions of folk wisdom are reflected in proverbs and idioms. A last component of sociolinguistic competence according to CEFR deals with language variation, i.e. ‘dialect and accent’. Under this heading, the framework refers to linguistic markers indicating social class, regional provenance, national origin, ethnicity or occupational group. These markers include lexical and grammatical elements, but most of all phonological features, vocal characteristics, paralinguistics and body language (Lochtman & Kappel, 2008: 50–51). With regard to GFL these markers are difficult to teach and implement in a classroom environment. A lack of instruction on language variation might also influence the perception by foreign language students of the linguistic norm. Sociolinguistic competence thus entails the fact that a speaker implicitly communicates information about his or her social status, intelligence, education, region of origin or relationship with the interlocutor. Foreign language learners are often fairly easily recognisable as such, though usually solely on the basis of their accent. The GFL students studied for this chapter were aware of this issue and stated Man kann erst perfekt Deutsch, wenn niemand noch sagt: Sie sprechen aber gut Deutsch, ‘Someone really speaks German well when no-one says: You speak German very well’.

The Native Speaker as the Norm? The problem in foreign language education is the issue of whether the native speaker should be considered as the most appropriate model for foreign language learners. Some studies (Schneiderman & Desmarais, 1990; White & Genesee, 1996) claim to have found evidence that nonnative speakers can be indistinguishable from native speakers. It should be noted, however, that these studies focus on linguistic competence and not on sociolinguistic competence. No studies (as far as I know) have reported non-native-speaking participants able to perform at native speaker level with regards to sociolinguistic or intercultural competence. The main question is thus whether foreign language users should conform to native speaker norms of the target language. Native speakers of German do not

92

Part 1: General and Theoretical

always use the language in the manner described in reference books (see e.g. Sick, 2004, 2005, 2006). But since an adult non-native speaker cannot become a native speaker without being reborn, one could state that there is no reason why the language ability of a foreign language user should be identical to the ability of a native speaker (Lochtman & Kappel, 2008). Few studies report on the perception of linguistic and/or sociolinguistic norms by foreign language learners. Most studies deal with learners’ attitudes towards error tolerance and/or error correction (Ellis, 2008) and with the perception of foreign accents, i.e. phonological studies (see also Kang, 2010). However, the results from Timmis’s (2002) study, a classroom view of the issue of whether students should conform to native-speaker grammar norms of English as a foreign language, show that first there was uncertainty among students as to what this kind of grammar was. When shown an authentic example of informal language use, a fairly large number of students indicated that they did not want to learn this kind of English, even though they had previously stated that they were interested in learning all the grammar rules that native speakers employ, including the informal grammar such speakers use when they speak to each other in contexts requiring such grammar. Other students only found the use of informal grammar necessary in interactions with native speakers. While a minority of the teachers in Timmis’s (2002) study also found that exposure to informal native speaker grammar was unnecessary, the majority did feel that students should be exposed to this kind of language; they did, however, make a distinction between receptive and productive ability. The results from Timmis’s (2002) survey led to the tentative conclusion that there is still a desire among foreign language students in general to conform to native speaker norms (Lochtman & Kappel, 2008: 88).

Zwiebelfisch and the Concept of ‘the Native Speaker as the Norm’ In foreign language teaching, language errors could be defined as grammatical and lexical deviations from the standard target language. At the same time, native speakers may also feel the need for advice on language issues. Furthermore, the standard language is the norm which also determines the native speakers’ expectations regarding language use. This prescriptive norm is represented in reference books such as grammars and dictionaries and is based on what Maitz and Elspaß (2013) refer to as the language ideology of having one homogeneous standard language (see also Fiehler, 2007). From this perspective, native speakers also make ‘mistakes’ which, since 2003, have been picked up by Bastian Sick in his Spiegel Online column Zwiebelfisch.1 The resulting book series Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod (Sick, 2004, 2005, 2006) has become a real bestseller

Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language

93

in German-speaking countries. Bastian Sick is a stand-up comedian and language critic, who often makes fun of linguistic issues resulting from language variation and language change. In his comedy, he investigates the linguistic landscape in German cities, which always seems to lead towards new language-related topics and jokes. From this prescriptive point of view, native speakers also make many mistakes (e.g. the use of the double present perfect as in ich habe gegessen gehabt or the progressive sein+am+verb as in ich bin am telefonieren among others) and therefore they could not be perceived as the norm. Furthermore, the Zwiebelfisch columns have even caused controversy in the GFL literature, where scholars question the use of Bastian Sick’s publications for teaching German as a foreign language, in particular the fact that his prescriptions may be taken to represent the ‘best’ kind of German that foreign learners should aspire to (e.g. the discussion between Maitz & Elspaß [2007] and Roggausch [2007] in the journal Info DaF). Although Sick’s column is to be viewed as comedy and therefore popular science, one could think of two good reasons why (applied) linguists should not overlook the Zwiebelfisch columns in their work. First of all, native speakers also occasionally feel the need to be advised on language issues, and second, there is the everlasting discussion of the absence or decline of norms in linguistics (Schneider, 2008). There are, however, several reasons why the Zwiebelfisch columns should be categorised as language criticism. To start with, Bastian Sick willingly neglects the phenomenon of natural language change. Furthermore, he neglects language variation in terms of register, in particular the differences between spoken (colloquial) and written (formal) language. Finally, since criticizing language mistakes in isolation is part of the comic act, Sick neglects differences between the standard language and dialects, i.e. he neglects regional variation. As such, it is felt that from a GFL perspective the Zwiebelfisch columns are ideal for studying university German language and literature students’ attitudes towards linguistic and sociolinguistic norms.

GFL and Non-Standard German In German sociolinguistics, the representation of variation in language use is still heavily debated (Durrell, 2004, 2012). It is felt that the traditional dichotomy between the standard language on the one hand and dialects on the other is no longer a representation of reality (Ammon, 2004). But dialects are disappearing and a new intermediate, relatively widespread form of sub-regional standard language (or what in German is called a substandard) is emerging. This variety could be referred to as Umgangssprache or colloquial German (Durrell, 2004), although the terminology remains relatively vague. Other terms for this phenomenon that can be found in the literature are Alltagssprache ‘everyday language use’ or Sprechsprache ‘the

94

Part 1: General and Theoretical

spoken language’ (Kessel & Reimann, 2005: 141; Schwitalla, 1997). When language errors are defined as deviations from the standard, the question of which standard (or standards) should be chosen arises, especially in foreign language learning and teaching: the fairly homogeneous written standard which does not represent daily reality, or the rather more heterogeneous colloquial variety which is felt to be closer to real life (Neuland, 2009: 115). Having to make this choice also leads to feelings of frustration and uncertainty with GFL teachers (Durrell, 2006; Neuland, 2009).

The Present Study In order to investigate the foreign language students’ linguistic norm perception, 31 bachelor and 14 master students majoring in German from both the Université Libre de Bruxelles and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel had to write narratives of approximately 1000 words. The participants were on average 20–21 years old and their competence in German was sufficient for them to be able to write narratives in German. According to Swain et al. (2011: xi), ‘narrative inquiry and narrative analysis have vigorous roles in education generally. Storying the experience of teaching […], and of learning has become an accepted method of research’. The question addressed in the analysis of the narratives was how Auslandsgermanistik students perceive language variation (i.e. features from colloquial German and German dialects) and language change in the light of the fact that such features are generally neglected in GFL classrooms in favour of the written standard variety (Neuland, 2009). The written narratives were analysed on a qualitative basis. Statements about the columns were classified according to four categories (Lochtman, 2012): (1) (2) (3) (4)

Prescriptive statements. Statements about the columnist Bastian Sick. Linguistic statements. Statements from the perspective of a foreign language learner.

It was felt that on the basis of these categories, attitudes towards language varieties and change could be identified. Furthermore, such attitudes may influence the willingness to learn all aspects of a foreign language, i.e. both spoken and written varieties alike (Roche, 2005: 33–42).

Results Most of the statements (approximately 35%) found in the students’ narratives fell in the prescriptive category, the first category listed in the preceding section. The students seem to have a rather conservative opinion

Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language

95

on linguistic norms, which they believe applies to the written standard. Examples of statements from this category are the following: (1) Obwohl der Konjunktiv bedroht ist, kann man doch nicht behaupten, dass er eine unbedeutende Randerscheinung in der deutschen Sprache sei. Alle Grammatikwerke zum Beispiel, schenken dem Konjunktiv viele Kapitel ‘Although the conjunctive is threatened, you couldn’t state that it’s a minor issue in the German language. All grammar books for instance treat the conjunctive in many chapters’. (2) Vielleicht ist Sick zu konservativ, aber es ist gut, dass es Menschen gibt, die sich um die Sprache kümmern ‘Maybe Sick is too conservative, but it’s a good thing, that there are people who take care of the language’. (3) Es ist doch wichtig, dass die Sprecher, aber vor allem die Fremdsprachenlerner, die Grammatik richtig verwenden ‘It is important that speakers, but in particular foreign language learners, speak the language correctly’. (4) Man soll versuchen, Fehler zu vermeiden. Wenn wir nicht auf die Regeln achten, dann geht ein Teil des Reichtums der Sprache verloren ‘One should try to avoid mistakes. If we do not consider the rules, part of the richness of the language will be lost’. (5) Man soll Wörter aus dem Englischen vermeiden ‘One should avoid the use of English words’. (6) […] die rheinische Verlaufsform, die ich aber lieber den am-Progressiv nenne, wäre es nur, weil sich das intelligenter anhört ‘[…] the form for aspect in the Rhineland, which I would rather call the am progressive, just because it sounds more intelligent’. (7) Falsche Freunde sind also nicht nur eine Gefahr für Fremdsprachenlerner, sondern auch für Muttersprachler und sogar Journalisten lassen sich dazu verführen, Wörter aus Fremdsprachen falsch zu übersetzen ‘False friends are not just a danger for foreign language learners, but also for native speakers and even journalists are seduced into translating words poorly from foreign languages’. (Lochtman, 2012: 198−199) The second category includes statements about the columnist Bastian Sick himself and consists of more or less the same number of comments as those in the first one (35%). In these statements the students expressed their appreciation of Sick’s comedy. Examples of such statements are (8) through (14): (8) (9)

Wiederum zeigt Sick seine Vorliebe für Drama ‘Again, Sick prefers drama’. Bastian Sick kommt in seinen Texten ziemlich arrogant an ‘Bastian Sick appears rather arrogant in his texts’. (10) Sick ist sarkastisch ‘Sick is sarcastic’. (11) Sick ist ein Purist und Kulturpessimist ‘Sick is a purist and a culture pessimist’.

96

Part 1: General and Theoretical

(12) Sick betrachtet alles sehr negativ ‘Sick sees everything in a very negative way’. (13) Es gibt viel Ironie und viele Übertreibungen ‘There is lots of irony and many exaggerations’. (14) Es gibt viele Karikaturen ‘There are many caricatures’. (Lochtman, 2012: 199) The participants in the survey clearly failed to appreciate the humour displayed in the columns. These sentiments add to a prescriptive perception of the linguistic norm. The next category represents the students’ perceptions on the question addressed in their narratives from a linguistic point of view (approximately 20% of the statements). One-fifth of the statements display a comprehensive view on language variety and language change. Examples can be found in the statements in (15) through (21): (15) Ich finde es schön, dass er [Sick] den Nicht-Philologen auf die Sprachwandelphänomene hinweist, aber ich denke auch, dass er die Bevölkerung zu kritisch für Sprachveränderung macht. Sprache entwickelt sich fort, so ist eben das Leben ‘I like the fact that he [Sick] points out the language development phenomena to non-linguists, but I also think that he makes the people too critical with regard to language change. Language changes over time, such is life’. (16) Ich finde es keinen Verfall, denn Internetsprache ist eine Sprache an sich und Fehler wird es ja immer geben ‘I don’t think it’s a question of decay, because the language of the internet is a variety on its own and there will always be mistakes’. (17) Es handelt sich bei Sick nicht um wissenschaftliche Argumente, sondern eher um Vermutungen ‘Sick does not use scientific arguments. It’s about assumptions’. (18) Das Wichtigste ist, dass keine Missverständnisse auftreten ‘Most important is that there are no misunderstandings’. (19) Eine Sprache entwickelt sich ja immer weiter ‘A language changes over time’. (20) Ohne das Vorhandensein einer Norm kann man etwas nicht als falsch bewerten ‘Without a norm there are no mistakes’. (21) Sick berücksichtigt nicht, dass Leute über verschiedene Register verfügen ‘Sick does not consider the fact that people have different registers at their disposal’. (Lochtman, 2012: 199) The final and smallest category is concerned with statements from the perspective of a foreign language learner (approximately 10% of the statements). The students did not seem to feel confident to make judgments about native speakers’ language use, as illustrated in the statements in (22) through (24):

Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language

97

(22) Als Nicht-Muttersprachler wäre es vielleicht nicht möglich, dieses Phänomen zu beurteilen ‘As a non-native speaker it might not be possible to judge this phenomenon’. (23) Es ist schon deutlich, dass unter deutschen Muttersprachlern wenig Interesse dafür besteht, sich mit diesen Sprachproblemen zu beschäftigen ‘It is rather obvious that German native speakers are not that interested in such language problems’. (24) Die Deutschen sind sich in den letzten Jahren ihrer Sprache bewusst und denken, dass sie benachteiligt werden, weil sie die größte Gemeinschaft in der EU sind und somit auch den größten Beitrag zahlen ‘Germans are more conscious about their language lately and think they have a disadvantage, because they are the largest community in the EU and therefore pay the biggest amount of money’. (Lochtman, 2012: 200)

Discussion Statements (1) through (7) display a fairly conservative and prescriptive perception of the linguistic norm. Students seem to be concerned primarily with grammatical accuracy, displaying a rather low-error tolerance. This view complies with the one-dimensional concept of the standard representing the written, formal and homogeneous variety of the language. Neuland (2009) therefore proposes the introduction of a multidimensional sociolinguistic norm concept in GFL pedagogy. This concept should refer to registers and actual, i.e. formal and informal, language use. The lack of such a usage-based norm in the foreign language classroom could be explained by the type of classroom interaction in traditional foreign language teaching. Edmondson and House (2005: 249) refer in this sense to the ‘paradox of language teaching’, whereby GFL teachers in the classroom make an effort to teach the students to speak as if they were ‘outside the classroom’. Furthermore, in foreign language classrooms, the target language is not the lingua franca of both the teachers and the students. Taking turns in interaction is influenced by an unequal teacher–student relationship which in fact displays a social hierarchy, and interaction patterns are still heavily determined by the traditional ‘teacher question – student answer – teacher feedback’ sequence (Edmondson & House, 2005). In short, opportunities to use the target language in an authentic way are therefore rare and not selfevident. An additional authenticity problem arises in the GFL classroom in that forms of oral communication are presented in written texts (Neuland, 2009: 121). The question is, therefore, how to introduce authenticity in the foreign language classroom. One suggestion might be the introduction of the approach called ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning’ or CLIL (Coyle et al., 2010). This approach to

98

Part 1: General and Theoretical

language learning implies that a non-language-related subject such as history or geography is taught in a foreign language. Whether this approach contributes to the authenticity of language use in a teaching situation and the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence, is, however, still under research. The students’ statements about the columnist Bastian Sick in (8) through (14) are in the same vein as the findings from the first category discussed above. The students do not think Sick is funny, failing to identify or understand the humour displayed in the columns. Students feel that it is wrong to make fun of the linguistic norm and of language mistakes, and see the written standard as the ultimate norm. The question is, however, whether or not these perceptions are due to a possible misunderstanding in intercultural communication. The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a foreign language learning context can be interpreted as the acquisition of intercultural competence. As mentioned above, sociolinguistic competence can also be viewed as the language component of intercultural competence (CEFR, 2001). Misunderstandings due to a lack of intercultural competence may influence attitudes towards foreign language learning and might therefore also influence the motivation for learning a language in a negative way (Dörnyei, 2003). The findings from an earlier study I undertook (Lochtman, 2009) on language attitudes towards GFL showed that students expressed a fairly stereotypical view of German verbal behaviour. German native speakers were felt to be very formal, stand-offish or even impolite (House, 2005). Native German speakers, however, express politeness and formality in a different way than other Europeans (House, 1999, 2005). Some characteristics of a typical German discourse are directness and self-directedness, while German speakers are focused on the content of the message (rather than on the interlocutor) and their speaking style is explicit and ad hoc (as opposed to being based on routines) (House, 1999: 49). Humour is felt to be very culture specific. As mentioned above, misunderstandings could be due to intercultural differences and an underdeveloped sociolinguistic competence. While grammatical errors may be irritating and interfere with communication, they are at least immediately apparent as such, thus allowing native speakers to recognise their interlocutors as being not fully competent and, because of this, generally show more understanding of non-native speaker interlocutors. Sociolinguistic failure, however, might not always be recognised by native speakers who are non-linguists, so that if foreign language speakers are grammatically competent, native speakers may attribute any apparent impoliteness or unfriendliness to bad manners or ill will. According to Thomas (1983: 97), misunderstandings of this nature are almost certainly at the root of national stereotyping such as the ‘abrasive Russian’, the ‘obsequious Indian’, the ‘insincere American’ or ‘the stand-offish Briton’ (Lochtman & Kappel, 2008: 91–92).

Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language

99

Only one-fifth of the students’ statements, illustrated by Examples (15) through (21), take into account linguistic and scientific arguments. Students seem to be only moderately concerned with language variation and language change. Their first concern does not seem to be a sociolinguistic norm, but they do seem to be aware of the existence of sociolinguistic competence. This might be partly due to the new communication possibilities on the internet (see the statement in (16)). According to the literature, three factors have been claimed to be important in learners’ sociolinguistic competence and how it develops over time (Ellis, 2008). The first factor is the learner’s linguistic competence: learners cannot construct native-speaker-type discourse if they do not have the linguistic skills required. The second factor is the status of the learner. In most interactions with native-speaking interlocutors, learners are not considered as equal participants. They have a reduced status because they are learners. This is also the case in a classroom situation. As mentioned above, classroom interaction determines the type of discourse to be employed and the type of roles that students are allowed to play, thus restricting the range of speech acts they will be able to perform. The third factor is transfer, of which Ellis (2008) claims that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that learners apply ‘rules of speaking’ from their mother tongue to the target language. Such ‘sociolinguistic transfer’ or ‘sociolinguistic interference’ consists of both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of sociolinguistic knowledge (see also House, 1999, 2005; Lochtman & Kappel, 2008: 90–91). As mentioned in the previous section, the final and smallest category of statements made by the students in their narratives, as illustrated in (22) through (24), concern the perspective of a foreign language learner. The students who made these statements do not seem to feel confident enough to make judgments about native speakers’ language use, but they do not see the native speaker as the ‘ultimate’ norm either. These findings seem to corroborate the results from Timmis’s (2002) study which showed that students express uncertainty as to what kind of native grammar they should choose as the norm, and their averseness to learning the colloquial and informal variety. But because of the small number of statements that could be assigned to this category and the many statements classified into the first two categories, I would tentatively like to conclude that there is still a desire among most GFL students to conform to native speakers’ norms.

Conclusion The Auslandsgermanistik students’ perceptions on linguistic and sociolinguistic norms can be summarised as follows. The students have a conservative and prescriptive view on linguistic norms and language use.

100

Part 1: General and Theoretical

For them, the written standard is the norm. Grammatical accuracy is of primary importance, and they seem to have a low tolerance for error in this respect. Students do not consider Bastian Sick to be funny, which might be due to misunderstandings based on an undeveloped intercultural (and therefore sociolinguistic) competence. Only a few of the participants’ statements deal with linguistic (scientific) and/or sociolinguistic points of view. A minority is open to the idea of language change and language variation being addressed in the foreign language classroom. The role of new communication possibilities offered by the internet in this light is still to be studied. I will end by making some suggestions for language pedagogy (GFL at university). To start with, Auslandsgermanistik should pay more attention to sociolinguistic norms and language varieties, both with regard to foreign language acquisition and in lectures on German linguistics. This means that the focus should not solely be on the written standard but also on the differences between formal and informal usage, written and spoken language and standard and colloquial language use. Furthermore, students should be made aware that developing sociolinguistic competence in a foreign language also implies developing intercultural competence. The definition of ‘what is correct’ needs to be extended in that it no longer refers only to grammatical accuracy but also to comprehensibility and appropriateness (i.e. language behaviour in context). Students should be made to realise that acquiring a purely linguistic norm is not enough, that a German Umgangssprache (or colloquial German) exists and that norms vary according to context. Learners are not, however, expected to behave like native speakers. The results of this study lead only to tentative conclusions. The study could be extended with more participants at different stages of their foreign language acquisition. Specific knowledge of the first language (L1) of the learners could provide more insight into the possible transfer of assumptions from the L1 to the second language (L2), which in itself could affect learners’ attitudes to variation in the target language. Next to qualitative data, quantitative data could also be taken into account to make more conclusive observations about language learners’ perceptions and attitudes. For all that it is felt that the greatest challenge for future research lies in the question of how to incorporate the acquisition and teaching of sociolinguistic and intercultural competence in GFL teaching. The introduction of CLIL as a teaching method might be a possibility worth looking into.

Note (1)

See www.spiegel.de/thema/zwiebelfisch/.

Prescriptivism and Sociolinguistic Competence in German as a Foreign Language

101

References Ammon, U. (2004) Sprachliche variation im heutigen Deutsch. Der Deutschunterricht 1, 8−17. Biber, D. (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CEFR (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., Hood, Ph. and Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2003) Attitudes, orientations and motivation in language learning: Advances in theory, research and applications. Language Learning 53, 3−32. Durrell, M. (2004) Variation im Deutschen aus der Sicht von Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Der Deutschunterricht 1, 69–77. Durrell, M. (2006) Deutsche Standardsprache und Registervielfalt in DaF-Unterricht. In E. Neuland (ed.) Variation im heutigen Deutsch (pp. 111−122). Frankfurt a Main: Peter Lang. Durrell, M. (2012) Zur Relativierung von hochsprachlichen Normen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Der Blick von außen. In S. Günthner, W. Imo, D. Meer and J.G. Schneider (eds) Kommunikation und Öffentlichkeit. Sprachwissenschaftliche Potenziale zwischen Empirie und Norm (pp. 85−101). Berlin: W. De Gruyter. Edmondson, W.J. and House, J. (2005) Einführung in die Sprachlehrforschung. Tübingen: A. Francke (UTB). Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fiehler, R. (2007) Gesprochene Sprache – ein ‘sperriger’ Gegenstand. Info DaF (5), 460−471. Glück, H. and Sauer, W. (1997) Gegenwartsdeutsch. Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler. Gramley, S. and Pätzold, K.M. (1992) A Survey of Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gregory, M. and Carroll, S. (1978) Language Varieties and Their Social Contexts. London: Routledge. Halliday, M., McIntosh, A. and Strevens, P. (1973) The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman. House, J. (1999) Zur Relevanz kontrastiv-pragmatischer und interkultureller Diskursanalysen für das Fachübersetzen. In H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, D. Gile, J. House and A. Rothkegel (eds) Wege der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschforschung (pp. 43–54). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. House, J. (2005) Politeness in Germany-politeness in Germany? In L. Hickey and M. Stewart (eds) Politeness in Europe (pp. 13−28). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kang, O. (2010) ESL learners’ attitudes toward pronunciation instruction and varieties of English. In J. Levis and K. LeVelle (eds) Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Conference (pp. 105−118). Ames, IA: Iowa State University. Kessel, K. and Reimann, S. (2005) Basiswissen Deutsche Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: A. Francke (UTB). Kleppin, K. (1998) Fehler und Fehlerkorrektur. Berlin: Langenscheidt. Lochtman, K. (2009): Deutsch als Fremdsprache und andere Zielsprachen in Brüssel. Muttersprache 2, 126−136. Lochtman, K. (2012) Sprachnormen in der Auslandsgermanistik. Muttersprache 3, 194−202.

102

Part 1: General and Theoretical

Lochtman, K. and Kappel, J. (2008) The World a Global Village. Intercultural Competence in English Foreign Language Teaching. Brussels: VUBPRESS. Maitz, P. and Elspaß, S. (2007) Warum der ‘Zwiebelfisch’ nicht in den Deutschunterricht gehört. Info DaF 5, 515–526. Maitz, P. and Elspaß, S. (2013) Zur Ideologie des ‘Gesprochenen Standarddeutsch’. In J. Hagemann, W.P. Klein and S. Staffeldt (eds) Pragmatischer Standard (pp. 35–48). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Neuland, E. (2009) Jugendsprache, Mediensprache, Lehrwerksprache im DaF-Unterricht. In K. Lochtman and H.M. Müller (eds) Sprachlehrforschung. Festschrift für Madeline Lutjeharms (pp. 115−124). Bochum: AKS. Roche, J. (2005) Fremdsprachenerwerb. Fremdsprachendidaktik. Basel/Tübingen: A. Francke (UTB). Roggausch, W. (2007) Antwort auf Péter Maitz/Stephan Elspaß und Einladung zur Diskussion. Info DaF 5, 527–533. Sick, B. (2004) Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod. Köln: KiWi. Sick, B. (2005) Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod. Köln: KiWi. Sick, B. (2006) Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod. Köln: KiWi. Schneider, J.G. (2008) Das Phänomen Zwiebelfisch – Bastian Sicks Sprachkritik und die Rolle der Linguistik. Der Sprachdienst 52 (4), 172−180. Schneiderman, E.I. and Desmarais, C. (1990) The talented language learner: Some preliminary findings. Second Language Research 6, 91−109. Schwitalla, J. (1997) Gesprochenes Deutsch. Eine Einführung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Spiegel Online. See www.spiegel.de/thema/zwiebelfisch/ (accessed 3 May 2013). Swain, M., Kinnear, P. and Steinman, L. (2011) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Thomas, J. (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2), 91−112. Timmis, I. (2002) Native speaker norms and international English. ELT Journal 56 (3), 240−249. White, L. and Genesee, F. (1996) How native is near-native? The issue of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Second Language Research 12 (3), 233−265.

Part 2 Prescription and Tradition

7 Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade1

Introduction Much has been written about linguistic prescriptivism in France and England. In particular, commentators have argued that each of these languages’ respective traditions is the most prescriptive. Thus, in the early decades of the last century, the great historian of the French language, Ferdinand Brunot, maintained that [l]e règne de la grammaire […] a été, en France, plus tyrannique et plus long qu’en aucun pays ‘the reign of grammar […] has been longer and more tyrannical in France than in any other country’ (Brunot, 1909: 4; our emphasis, added in bold throughout). The same idea was articulated by Rodney Sampson in 1993: Few languages have been exposed in such a sustained way to prescriptive influences as French. For the past four centuries, official and unofficial bodies and individuals have sought to direct the language, and many of these have commanded, and continue to command, very considerable attention and favour amongst the French. (Sampson, 1993: 7) Recently, Henry Hitchings made a similar claim, writing that ‘Englishspeakers are touchy about questions of usage’. He added: ‘Touchiness […] is not uncommon among speakers of other languages, but English is the most contested language’ (Hitchings, 2011: 4). While it is not entirely clear what ‘contested’ means here, Hitchings’s remark reflects the same apparent truism regarding the status of English prescriptivism as do the comments on French. Discussion of prescriptivism in France often centres on the 17th-century grammarians and remarqueurs, the role of the Académie française (the French Academy) and other bodies concerned with the French 105

106

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

language, and the impact of 20th-century linguistic legislation (cf. AyresBennett, forthcoming). As regards England, the French Academy is usually held up as an example of the kind of official body needed to regulate the English language: this was the case in the early 18th century, but the same notion is still regularly expressed today (e.g. Honey, 1997: 166−168; TiekenBoon van Ostade, 2012a: 40–41). It is unlikely that an English Academy will ever be founded, and, perhaps paradoxically, it is also true that the Académie française does not have the impact, or even the status, in French society today that many people – particularly from countries without such an institution – attribute to it. In this chapter, we aim to shed fresh light on prescriptivism in France and England by comparing the nature and orientation of the prescriptive activities of the two national traditions in their respective sociocultural contexts.2 We will focus particularly on the extent to which each tradition has relied upon institutionalised prescription in the form of political and legislative activity or rather has depended on private initiatives and the efforts of individuals. Comparison between the two traditions highlights a key difference: whereas prescriptivism in France largely arose through, and continues to be framed by, official and legislative action, albeit with at times limited success, such support has been absent in England. After briefly presenting the historical background (second section), we will compare each country’s official and private initiatives (third section), examine the rise of usage guides (fourth section) and, finally, consider how the two traditions today share a number of features (fifth section).

The Historical Background France The history of the standardisation of French is well documented (e.g. Rickard, 1989; Lodge, 1993). The codification and establishment of prescriptive rules for French is above all identified with the 17th century, a century earlier than in England. This period is characterised by an increasingly centralised government and the rise of an absolute monarchy, established during the reign of Louis XIII (1610−1643) and consolidated under Louis XIV (1643−1715). The link between language and the state is apparent in the creation of the French Academy in 1635, and the role played in this by Cardinal Richelieu (1585−1642), Louis XIII’s chief minister. While recent studies have emphasised the complexity, and even the fragility, of the Academy’s position in its early years – caught between its desire to constitute an independent body of men of letters on the one hand, and the ambitions of Richelieu to make it an instrument of the monarchy on the other (e.g. Merlin-Kajman, 2001; Caron, 2013: 110−111) – the Academy came to incarnate the pre-eminent role assigned to the

Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England

107

language of the royal court.3 The Academy’s founding statutes articulate its intended purpose, specifying in Article 24 that [l]a principale fonction de l’Académie sera de travailler avec tout le soin et toute la diligence possibles à donner des règles certaines à notre langue et à la rendre pure, éloquente et capable de traiter les arts et les sciences ‘the main task of the Academy will be to work with as much care and diligence as possible to give our language fixed rules and to make it pure, eloquent and capable of treating the arts and sciences’ (Académie française, ‘Statuts et règlements’). Another crucial feature of 17th-century French society, which favoured the rise of prescriptivism, was that the period was marked by increased social mobility. The newly ennobled and social climbers required linguistic etiquette manuals to teach them how to acquire the linguistic skills typical of polite circles, notably the royal court and the salons. The power of the traditional nobility was being curbed, and lower-ranking titles could be purchased by wealthier – and socially aspiring – members of the bourgeoisie, and high-ranking but impoverished nobles found themselves rubbing shoulders with the nouveaux riches. Those wishing to fit into polite society needed to learn not only how to dress or eat like a gentleman, but also how to speak correctly. Works such as Claude Favre de Vaugelas’s Remarques sur la langue françoise utiles à ceux qui veulent bien parler et bien escrire ‘Remarks on the French language, useful to those who wish to speak and write correctly’ (1647), aimed to fill this gap in the market.

England In England, the question of having an academy like those of France and Italy – the Accademia della Crusca had already been founded in 1582 – dominated linguistic discussions during the first decade of the 18th century. The matter was first raised publicly by the poet John Dryden (1631−1700) (Emerson, 1921−23: 47), who had been a member of the Royal Society’s language committee set up in 1664 to ‘improve’ the English language, but whose ‘meetings […] eventually came to nothing’ (Winn, 1987: 129). Dryden’s continued interest in the state of English is evident in his plea for an academy in the dedication to Troilus and Cressida (1679), where he urged Robert Spencer, the second earl of Sunderland, to follow Richelieu’s example, so that English might similarly have an authoritative grammar and dictionary (Engetsu, 2004: 188−189; Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1990). Other writers repeated Dryden’s pleas, particularly Daniel Defoe (1660−1731), Joseph Addison (1672−1719) and Jonathan Swift (1667−1645). The idea of an academy gained the support of Queen Anne (1665−1714), and names of potential members were already circulating when the queen died. Having lost its main patron, the project didn’t materialise then (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2012a: 37), or indeed subsequently (cf. Edwards, 2012: 20−21). The codification of the

108

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

English language, which would have been the academy’s principal task, subsequently ‘fell to entrepreneurs’ (Finegan, 1992: 121). This was true for the publication of grammars, which throughout the 18th century were produced by authors from various backgrounds, including scientists, clergymen, lawyers and schoolteachers, but also for dictionaries: the most prestigious dictionary of the period was published in 1755 by the writer Samuel Johnson (1709−1784), following one published in 1749 by the scientist Benjamin Martin (ca. 1705−1782).

Official Action versus Private Initiatives France The French Academy was from the outset intended to produce reference works for the French language. This role is articulated in the founding statutes of 1635: the Academy was to publish a dictionary, a grammar and works on rhetoric and poetics. Progress on the dictionary was slow, and it did not appear until 1694, after the publication of two other great monolingual dictionaries, César Pierre Richelet’s Dictionnaire françois (1680) and Antoine Furetière’s Dictionaire universel (1690). The only official Academy grammar appeared in 1932, nearly 300 years after its foundation, but the projected works on rhetoric and poetics never came to fruition. From the beginning, questions were raised about the Academy’s authority and influence. In 1634, Jean Chapelain (1595−1674), in a letter to the writer Jean Louis Guez de Balzac (1597−1654), enthusiastically described the creation of the new Academy of which he was a founding member, but two years later Balzac (1661: 35) already expressed a certain scepticism about its authority. Richelieu demanded tangible proof of the Academy’s influence, and Caron (2013) even suggests that the Academy underwent a major crisis in the period up to 1700 in its struggle to fashion a role for itself. Preoccupied with its work on the dictionary and its commentaries on authoritative texts, the Academy was happy to leave the production of a grammatical work to one of its members. The close association of Vaugelas’s Remarques (1647) with the Academy is evident: Vaugelas apparently presented his manuscript to its members for comment some 10 years before publication of the final reworked version. Moreover, while he defines le bon usage (‘good usage’) as consisting of the spoken language of the ‘healthiest part’ of the royal court and of the written language of the best contemporary authors, he advises that if these two sources cannot resolve a question of doubtful usage, then gens sçavants en la langue (‘people knowledgeable about language’) should be consulted, thus indirectly acknowledging the Academy’s authority (Vaugelas, 1647: Preface II, 7). The work was a bestseller and became extraordinarily influential, both on

Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England

109

that of authors such as Pierre Corneille (1606−1684) and on the subsequent grammatical tradition (Ayres-Bennett, 1987; 2006). While the Academy has continued to produce new editions of its dictionary periodically (21718, 31740, 41762, 51798, 61835, 71877, 81932−1935, 9 1992−), its role for the general public nowadays is largely symbolic. Popular dictionaries today include Le Robert illustré, Le Petit Robert and Le Petit Larousse illustré, while scholars frequently cite the monumental Trésor de la langue française; the major reference grammar in France remains Le Bon Usage (11936, 152011), created by the Belgian Maurice Grevisse (1895−1980) and continued by his son-in-law, André Goosse (1926–). The Academy’s opinion is often sought on language issues, but it is not always heeded. A telling example is its reaction to the thorny question of the feminisation of professional names and titles; in 2002, the Academy admitted that no account had been taken of the views it had expressed on the matter in 1984 (Académie française, 2002). If the role of the Academy has declined over the centuries, other ‘official’ bodies have continued to operate in France.4 First, there are the terminology commissions, which focus on finding official replacements for Anglicisms. 5 The first commissions date from the 1970s, and by 1993 there were 20 of them within 11 ministries (Depecker, 2001: 36). By 1994, they had published over 4000 recommended terms in the Journal officiel (the official gazette of the French Republic). In 1996, it was decided that the French Academy must sanction the terms to be published in the Journal officiel, thereby guaranteeing it some influence over the creation and assimilation of neologisms.6 These alternatives may be new words of the type éditique for electronic publishing, calques such as base de données for database or assimilated loanwords such as aquaplanage for aquaplaning. Another significant official intervention to prescribe usage is the legislation against unwanted Anglicisms in French and, more generally, against the use of English, for instance, in official documents. In 1975, the Bas-Lauriol Law was passed, which made French obligatory in advertisements and the provision of products and services; foreign terms and expressions were explicitly prohibited in these contexts as well as in the media and contracts (‘Loi no 75-1349 du 31 décembre 1975 relatif à l’emploi de la langue française’). In 1994, the Loi Toubon was passed, to update the linguistic legislation and to give it more teeth (‘Loi n° 94-665 du 4 août 1994 relative à l’emploi de la langue française’). This law again stipulated that all public service contracts must be in French and must not contain any foreign terms or expressions if official French alternatives exist. Notably, however, this time its scope was limited to the public sector. Finally, there are the many French language associations, either state sponsored or privately run. These frequently have a dual focus, promoting not only the use of French and French words and expressions, but also correct usage of French. Both the state body, the Délégation générale à la

110

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

langue française et aux langues de France which, as part of the Ministry of Culture, is responsible for the government’s linguistic policy, and a number of private associations play a role in upholding the Toubon law by bringing cases of infringement to court (Délégation générale à la langue française, 2001).

England Shortly before the death of Queen Anne, when the discussion about the establishment of an English Academy had gained momentum, the anonymous Bellum Grammaticale (1712) appeared. This pamphlet compares three grammars published around the same time: Brightland and Gildon (1711), Greenwood (1711) and Maittaire (1712) (Buschmann-Göbels, 2008: 88).7 The comparison came down in favour of the one by Brightland and Gildon, and Buschmann-Göbels argues that the anonymous author of the pamphlet was Charles Gildon (ca. 1665−1724), who thus tried to promote his own grammar. Buschmann-Göbels (2008: 91), moreover, argues that Gildon was the sole author of the grammar, while Brightland merely financed its publication. The title page indeed states that the grammar was published ‘for John Brightland’. Buschmann-Göbels (2008: 88) interprets the publication of the Bellum Grammaticale as ‘a kind of struggle for the market amongst the publishers and authors of the grammars’. In the light of the discussions around the same time about an English Academy, however, it appears rather to have been an attempt by Gildon to have his own grammar adopted by the soon-to-be established academy. The grammar was dedicated to the prospective academy’s patron, Queen Anne, and the dedication draws a parallel with France, noting that ‘[a] Grammar of the French Language was the First Labour of that Learned Body the French Academy’ (Brightland and Gildon, 1711: sig. A2r−v). For English, the dedication implied, such a grammar already existed. Shortly afterwards, the historian John Oldmixon (1672/3−1742), likewise interested in an English Academy, wrote that ‘two English Grammars’ – presumably Gildon’s grammar and Greenwood (1712) – ‘hav[e] been publish’d within this twelvemonth, and it remains […] to add a Dictionary worthy those Immortal Labours’ (Oldmixon, [1712]: 10−11; Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2012b: 66–67). Oldmixon thus acknowledged the main task of an academy: the publication of an authoritative grammar and dictionary. For all the pleas and plans for an English academy, an authoritative grammar was already believed to have come into existence, not under the auspices of an academy, but as the result of private initiative, sponsored by a member of the rising middle classes, the vintner John Brightland (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2012a: 39). A real burgeoning of English grammars occurred during the 1760s, and now we do witness a struggle for the market (Tieken-Boon van

Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England

111

Ostade, 2008). During the 1760s alone, 19 new titles were published, all by different publishers, while several earlier publications were reprinted (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2008: 106−107). The publishers had evidently identified a demand for English grammars among the general public, caused by the effects of the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, leading to considerable social mobility. As in France more than a century earlier, the remarkable grammatical productivity of the second half of the 18th century has been attributed to the need of the rising middle classes to gain access to new linguistic norms (Fitzmaurice, 1998). This need was catered for not by official institutions but by enterprising booksellers, who, recognising the potential interest in grammars, brought out one grammar after another, anticipating financial gain.

The Rise of the Usage Guide France French usage guides originated in the work of Vaugelas and other remarqueurs following in his footsteps, such as Gilles Ménage (1613−1692) and Dominique Bouhours (1628−1702) (Ayres-Bennett, 2011). These volumes of observations aim to resolve questions of ‘doubtful usage’, issues on which the best people were likely to make mistakes. Vaugelas, targeting an audience composed of the honnêtes gens of polite society, deliberately adopted a random ordering for his remarks, avoiding the part of speech format associated with formal grammars and the overuse of technical metalanguage. Nearly 60 years later, rather than producing a new grammatical work, the Academy chose to reprint Vaugelas’s Remarques, together with its own comments which updated his judgements (Académie française, 1704). The tradition of volumes on good usage has been long and far-reaching (Ayres-Bennett, 1991). In the first half of the 19th century, with the increased emphasis on mastery of the French language in the educational system, there was a notable rise in the production of grammars and usage guides (Poplack et al., 2015). A particularly interesting example, since the author explicitly situates his work in the tradition of Vaugelas’s Remarques in the preface, is Francis Wey’s (1845) Remarques sur la langue française au dix-neuvième siècle, sur le style et la composition littéraire ‘Remarks on the French language in the 19th century, on style and literary composition’. In Wey’s view, periods of crisis, generated through political and moral upheaval, lead to changes in the language and literature of a nation. Since he considers France to be entering another such period, Wey argues for the need for new observations, to fight defective expressions and unacceptable neologisms and to restore French to a state of clarity. The work is divided into two parts, the first of which contains 417 remarks on the French

112

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

language. As with Vaugelas, the observations are generally short, ranging across questions of orthography, lexis, morphology and syntax. In the 20th century, usage guides have continued to be produced by linguists and non-linguists alike (adopting more or less prescriptive positions). Among the linguists, Maurice Grevisse, Robert Le Bidois and Bernard Cerquiglini are of note. The non-linguists include television personalities such as the quiz show host Julien Lepers, and journalists, proofreaders and bloggers like Sylvie Prioul and Olivier Houdart. In Les fautes de français? Plus jamais!, Lepers (2011) notes how viewers contact him to point out his linguistic errors. The book covers both what he calls errors which irritate like the sound of chalk on a blackboard – ranging from incorrect pronunciations to ‘useless or ridiculous’ Anglicisms – and ‘tolerable errors’ (Lepers, 2011: 15). Houdart and Prioul’s book (2009) has the arresting title La grammaire, c’est pas de la tarte! ‘Grammar isn’t a piece of cake!’,8 and aims to treat linguistic issues which nous causent le plus de souffrances ‘cause us the most suffering’.

England The English equivalent of the remarqueur entered the scene much later than in France. The first English usage guide was Robert Baker’s Reflections on the English Language (1770), a work inspired by Vaugelas, as its subtitle, ‘in the nature of Vaugelas’s reflections on the French’, reminds us. Baker (fl. 1760−1779) was a hack writer, who tried to make a living by publishing books which he believed might have popular appeal (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2011: 265). In the preface to Reflections, he described himself as a non-expert in the field, who had not even come across Johnson’s wellknown Dictionary of the English Language (1755) ‘till a few Days ago, when, observing it inserted in the Catalogue of a Circulating Library where I subscribe, I sent for it’ (Baker, 1770: iv−v). Nor was Baker aware of Lowth’s (1762) popular and authoritative grammar, which, due to its many footnotes on grammatical errors of well-known English writers, really was a usage guide ‘avant la lettre’ (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2011: 272−277). It was only when Baker was engaged on a second, much enlarged edition of Reflections (1779) that Lowth’s grammar was brought to his attention, as he noted in the preface (Baker, 1779: xxiii). Eager to dispel the possible taint of plagiarism due to the many similarities of his work with Lowth’s grammar, he continued: I then perceived that some (not many) of the observations I had made, had been already made by the author of that work. On the other hand, there are observations in a subsequent edition of the Introduction, which I had made in my first edition. But I have no suspicion that any of those observations were borrowed from me. Whoever will give

Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England

113

himself the trouble to compare the two books will, indeed, be inclined to wonder that they do not oftener detect the same correctnesses than they actually do. (Baker, 1779: xxiii) Baker’s point is interesting because the same grammatical items continued to be discussed in the many usage guides published subsequently.

Wider Interest in Prescriptivism France If there is a great deal of official and ‘top-down’ activity in France, there are also a number of more popular outlets for linguistic prescriptivism. Notable are the many columns or chroniques de langage in national and regional newspapers, magazines and journals, which are often subsequently turned into books.9 Le Monde has had columns by such well-known writers as Robert Le Bidois, Albert Dauzat and Jacques Cellard. They treat what the back cover to Alain Bladuche-Delage’s (2003) collection of chroniques calls les hésitations de l’usage ‘hesitations about usage’, paralleling Vaugelas’s usage douteux ‘doubtful usage’. Many of these columns are a direct response to readers’ questions or complaints about French usage; for instance, André Thérive (1933: vii) in the preface to his second volume of Querelles de langage describes his readers as collaborators in a ‘collective volume’. There is a striking continuity in the kind of questions treated, including uncertainty over the correct grammatical gender of words (amour, délice, orgue), past participle agreement, agreement with collective nouns, the differentiation of related words (second and deuxième) and, of course, Anglicisms. In her analysis of the chroniques published in Le Figaro, Anna Bochnakowa (2005, 2013) demonstrates how the tone of these columns may range from being descriptive to more overtly purist and prescriptive, as in the case of the academician Maurice Druon, the founder of the column (Ayres-Bennett, 2015). The various private language societies also often serve as a conduit for complaints from the general public, with members sending in photographs of shop signs or advertisements with what they view as an unwarranted use of English. Since the 1990s, new societies have been established online, and older ones have created an online presence, thereby enhancing their accessibility to the general public (Walsh, 2012: 108−128). One of the most purist and prescriptive in its orientation is the association aptly named Défense de la langue française, ‘Defence of the French language’.10 With over 3000 members and over 4000 subscribers to its journal, it is openly hostile to English terms, but it is also concerned with errors in usage such as the subjunctive appearing after après que and similar questions discussed in the chroniques. Many societies organise petitions, distribute pamphlets, run

114

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

competitions and mount protests. They often have a ‘museum or gallery of horrors’, featuring photographs of shops signs using English, lists of Anglicisms and other perceived errors heard on the television or radio. A number of the chroniqueurs blame television and radio for the rapid spread of what they consider to be barbarisms and solecisms, though the media are also a powerful force for promoting normative grammar. Perhaps the best-known television programme is ‘Merci professeur!’ on TV5, featuring the linguist Bernard Cerquiglini,11 while the spelling championship run by Bernard Pivot, Les Dicos d’or, was televised from 1985 to 2005. On the radio, the linguist Alain Rey had a regular slot on France Inter (1993−2006) and now appears on Europe 1. Internet sites and blogs on the French language have also multiplied: Langue-fr.net, for instance, aims to help all users of French. Even the Academy now has on its website a series significantly entitled Dire, Ne pas dire ‘Say, Don’t say’.

England Today, English usage guides are a popular genre, with many publishers aiming for a niche in the market by bringing out their own version. This shows a striking parallel with the 18th century, when grammars appeared in large numbers thanks to the efforts of the publishers. Authors of usage guides, like 18th-century grammarians, come from a variety of backgrounds, many, like Baker, being non-specialists in the field of language. HUGE, a database of usage guides and usage problems compiled within the Leiden University Bridging the Unbridgeable project (Straaijer, 2014), includes usage guides written by journalists (Simon Heffer, 2010: Strictly English), travel writers (Bill Bryson, 1987: Troublesome Words), novelists (Kingsley Amis, 1997: The King’s English), civil servants (Sir Ernest Gowers, 1954: The Complete Plain Words) and schoolmasters (H.W. Fowler, 1926: Modern English Usage). Linguists are also represented, such as Greenbaum and Whitcut (1988: The Longman Guide to English Usage) and Peters (2004: Cambridge Guide to English Usage), but the genre is dominated by non-linguists. In the light of the many usage guides in existence, it is striking that the BBC publishes its own News Style Guide (most recently by John Allen, 2013; cf. Luscombe, 2011: 144). Though available only to students of the College of Journalism, the document ‘details many of the rules of spelling, punctuation and grammar’ (‘News Style Guide’), features that are typically the domain of usage guides (Weiner, 1988: 173). That the BBC publishes its own usage manual rather than adopting an existing one may have to do with its perceived status as a language watchdog (Ebner, 2016; Luscombe, 2009). This situation came about because listeners have long been sending in complaints about linguistic errors heard on the radio. Milroy and Milroy ([1985] 2012) argue that English has a ‘complaint tradition’, a phenomenon that is ‘typically found in communities that have

Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England

115

highly developed standard language’ (Milroy & Milroy, [1985] 2012: 39), and which clearly has parallels in France (previous section). ‘The function of these complaints’, Milroy and Milroy continue, ‘is to maintain public acceptance of one variety as superior to others’. This very tradition may be behind Hitchings’s comment on the touchiness of English speakers about their language, cited in the first section. In the absence of an official body like an English Academy, listeners address their complaints to the BBC, which they regard as having semi-official status in this respect. In 1981, Robert Burchfield (1923−2004), then chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, another ‘institution’ with considerable authority, published The Spoken Word: A BBC Guide. The booklet covers pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar, subdividing grammatical items according to whether they are ‘unacceptable under any circumstances’, whether their use is ‘resisted by listeners but permissible in informal English’ or is merely ‘debatable’, in which case ‘preferences [are] provided’ (Burchfield, 1981: 27). The profile of the BBC’s informants is typically that of Radio 4 listeners: southern, older and middle class (Luscombe, 2011:170). The BBC’s advice is thus shaped by opinions about linguistic correctness held among a group of self-proclaimed language guardians. English, too, has its spelling competitions – mostly focusing on children – and its language associations: examples are the Apostrophe Protection Society, the Simplified Spelling Society and the Queen’s English Society. As in France, there are newspaper columns on language, occasionally by linguists like Peter Trudgill in the Eastern Daily Press (e.g. Trudgill, 2013), as well as internet sites and language blogs, such as The Guardian’s ‘Mind your Language’ and Michael Quinion’s ‘World Wide Words’. Two other examples worth mentioning, because the authors in question also produced usage guides, are Simon Heffer’s (2010) article ‘The Correction’ in The Telegraph online and Oliver Kamm’s column The Pedant in The Times.12 Heffer’s Strictly English was published in 2010, and Kamm’s Accidence will Happen: The Non-Pedantic Guide to English Usage (2015) is one of the most recent new English usage guides published.

Conclusion The nature and scope of prescriptive activity in England and France explain the comments on the importance of normative activity in these countries. While we would not wish to adjudicate between the claims for pre-eminence in this respect, our comparison has highlighted interesting similarities and differences between the two. Notably, we have seen that, while there is to some extent a growing convergence between prescriptive outlets in England and France, the languages’ normative traditions evolved very differently. From the 17th century on, the French state has promoted the political and social advantages of having a strong, codified national

116

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

language. Government action today focuses particularly on protecting French from the ‘contamination’ of English, and on promoting its use within France and beyond. French, like many European languages, is battling to hold its position in areas such as business, research and higher education in the face of pressure from English. On the other hand, recent research suggests that the French Academy has today a largely symbolic function and that linguistic legislation and the work of the terminology commissions impacts relatively little on the attitudes and behaviour of the general public. Walsh (2012: 277−279), for instance, found that few people were aware of French linguistic legislation; moreover, only about a quarter of her informants believed that the government should intervene in linguistic matters. This perhaps explains the success of usage guides, chroniques de langage and blogs in responding to the continuing perceived need for linguistic guidance. While France led the way in creating an academy with official support, England failed to establish a similar authoritative body, not because proposals to this effect lacked supporters, but because crucial royal patronage disappeared with Queen Anne’s death. What occurred subsequently resulted from private initiative and enterprise, particularly from publishers, which led to the publication of a spate of grammars, all aiming for a niche in a growing market for linguistic advice. The market subsequently witnessed the rise of the usage guide, once again following the example of France. As in the case of the 18th-century grammars, authors of English usage guides to this day are predominantly nonspecialists, lacking an academic background in linguistics. Even the recent English Grammar for the Natives (Ritchie, 2013) is the work of a journalist. Prescription is typically considered to be a force operating principally ‘from above’, and this is the context in which much of the prescriptive activity in France grew and continues to exist, albeit sometimes with only limited success or impact. In England, however, most prescriptive activity has instead come ‘from below’.

Notes (1) (2) (3)

(4)

Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s contribution was written in the context of the research project Bridging the Unbridgeable: Linguists, Prescriptivists and the General Public, funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. Because of limitations of space, we focus here on France and Britain, although it would be interesting to extend the analysis to the anglophone and francophone worlds more generally. As a corollary, the language of the law courts, once considered a possible source of good usage, was relegated to a ‘jargon’. It is noteworthy that the Parlement de Paris, the chief judicial body, took two years to register the letters patent for the Academy’s creation. For a history of intervention on French lexical issues (1950−1994), see Chansou (2003).

Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England

117

(5) The stated aims of the commissions have varied over the years (Walsh, 2012: 55–58): while these include identifying lexical gaps and proposing new terms for new entities, in practice they have concentrated on the replacement of foreign borrowings. (6) Annual reports on the work of the Commission générale de terminologie et de néologie, including a discussion of the role played by the Academy, can be found on the Documentation française website; the most recent report is dated 2013 (Commission générale de terminologie, 2013). (7) For full bibliographical details of the grammars discussed, see Alston (1965). (8) Note the omission of the negative ne in the title – against the rules of prescriptive grammar, but common in informal language. (9) For example, Cellard (1979), Druon (1999); a useful bibliography is Quemada (1970−1972). (10) See http://www.langue-française.org. (11) A collection of these chroniques was published as Cerquiglini (2008). (12) Thanks to Morana Lukač for pointing this out.

References Académie française (1694) Le Dictionnaire de l’Académie françoise (1st edn), 2 volumes. Paris: La Veuve de J.B. Coignard & J.B. Coignard. Académie française (1704) Observations de l’Académie françoise sur les Remarques de M. de Vaugelas. Paris: J.B. Coignard. Académie française (2002) ‘Féminisation des noms de métiers, fonctions, grades et titres’. See http://www.academie-francaise.fr/actualites/feminisation-des-noms-demetiers-fonctions-grades-et-titres (accessed 16 February 2015). Académie française, ‘Dire, Ne pas dire’. See http://www.academie-francaise.fr/dire-nepas-dire (accessed 16 February 2015). Académie française, ‘Statuts et règlements’. See http://www.academie-francaise.fr/sites/ academie-francaise.fr/files/statuts_af_0.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). Alston, R.C. (1965) A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Printing to the Year 1800. Volume 1. English Grammars Written in English. Leeds: Arnold & Son. Ayres-Bennett, W. (1987) Vaugelas and the Development of the French Language. London: MHRA. Ayres-Bennett, W. (1991) Observations et remarques sur la langue française: Histoire d’un genre. La Licorne 19, 1−24. Ayres-Bennett, W. (2006) Reading the remarqueurs: Changing perceptions of ‘classic’ texts. Historiographia Linguistica 33 (3), 263–302. Ayres-Bennett, W. (2011) Corpus des remarques sur la langue française (XVIIe siècle). Paris: Classiques Garnier Numérique. Ayres-Bennett, W. (2015) La persistance de l’idéologie linguistique des remarqueurs dans les chroniques de langage de 1925 à nos jours. Circula, 1: La Médiatisation des idéologies linguistiques: Tradition et continuité dans la presse écrite, 44−68. Ayres-Bennett, W. (forthcoming) Codification and prescription in linguistic standardisation: Myths and models. In F. Feliu (ed.) Constructing Languages: Norms, Myths and Emotions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Baker, R. (1770) Reflections on the English Language. London: J. Bell. Baker, R. (1779) Remarks on the English Language. London: J. Bell. Balzac, J.L. Guez de (1661) Lettres familières de M. de Balzac à M. Chapelain. Amsterdam: L. & D. Elsevier.

118

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Bladuche-Delage, A. (2003) Ici? ou là? Les Traîtres Mots. Paris: Éditions Mots & Cie & la Croix. Bochnakowa, A. (2005) Le Bon Français de la fin du XXe siècle. Chroniques du ‘Figaro’ 1996−2000. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Bochnakowa, A. (2013) Chroniques de langage dans Le Figaro (1996−2000). In W. Ayres-Bennett and M. Seijido (eds) Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique. Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales (pp. 171−177). Lyon: ENS Éditions. Brightland, J. and Gildon, C. (1711) A Grammar of the English Tongue. London: John Brightland. Brunot, F. (1909) Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900. Vol. 3: La Formation de la langue classique (1600−1660). Paris: A. Colin. Burchfield, R.W. (1981) The Spoken Word. A BBC Guide. London: British Broadcasting Corporation. Buschmann-Göbels, A. (2008) Bellum Grammaticale (1712) – A battle of books and a battle for the market? In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.) Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing in Eighteenth-Century England (pp. 81–100). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Caron, P. (2013) L’Académie française en gestation: à propos des Observations de l’Académie françoise sur les Remarques de M. de Vaugelas (1704). In W. Ayres-Bennett and M. Seijido (eds) Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique: Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales (pp. 109−118). Lyon: ENS Éditions. Chansou, M. (2003) L’Aménagement lexical en France pendant la période contemporaine, 1950−1994: Étude de sociolexicologie. Paris: H. Champion. Cellard, J. (1979) La Vie du langage. Chroniques 1971−1975 ‘Le Monde’. Paris: Le Robert. Cerquiglini, B. (2008) Merci professeur! Chroniques savoureuses sur la langue française. Paris: Bayard. Commission générale de terminologie (2013) ‘Rapport annuel 2013 de la Commission générale de terminologie et de néologie’. See http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise. fr/rapports-publics/164000218-rapport-annuel-2013-de-la-commission-generale-determinologie-et-de-neologie (accessed 7 July 2016). Défense de la langue française. See http://www.langue-francaise.org/ (accessed 17 February 2015). Délégation générale à la langue française (2001) ‘Rapport au Parlement sur l’application de la loi du 4 août 1994 relative à l’emploi de la langue française’. See http://www. ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/014000736/0000.pdf (accessed 18 February 2015). Depecker, L. (2001) L’Invention de la langue: Le Choix des mots nouveaux. Paris: Armand Colin-Larousse. Druon, M. (1999) Le ‘Bon Français’. Monaco: Éditions du Rocher. Ebner, C. (2016), Language guardian BBC? Investigating the BBC’s language advice in its 2003 News Styleguide. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (3), 308−320. Edwards, J. (2012) Foreword: Language, prescriptivism, nationalism – and identity. In C. Percy and M.C. Davidson (eds) The Languages of Nation. Attitudes and Norms (pp. 11−36). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Emerson, O.F. (1921−1923) John Dryden and a British Academy. Proceedings of the British Academy X, 45–58. Engetsu, K. (2004) Dryden and the modes of restoration sociability. In S.N. Zwicker (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to John Dryden (pp. 181–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Finegan, E. (1992) Style and standardization in England: 1700–1900. In T.W. Machan and C.T. Scott (eds) English in its Social Contexts (pp. 103−130). New York: Oxford University Press.

Prescriptivism in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of France and England

119

Fitzmaurice, S. (1998) The commerce of language in the pursuit of politeness in eighteenth-century England. English Studies 79, 309−328. Grevisse, M. (11936) Le Bon Usage. Gembloux: Duculot. Grevisse, M. and Goosse, A. (152011) Le Bon Usage. Grammaire française. Brussels: De Boeck-Duculot. Heffer, S. (2010) The Corrections. The Telegraph. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ culture/books/7956010/Simon-Heffer-The-Corrections.html (accessed 12 May 2015). Hitchings, H. (2011) The Language Wars: A History of Proper English. London: John Murray. Honey, J. (1997) Language is Power. The Story of Standard English and its Enemies. London: Faber and Faber. Houdart, O. and Prioul, S. (2009) La Grammaire c’est pas de la tarte!, Paris: Seuil. Lepers, J. (2011) Les Fautes de français? Plus jamais! Paris: Éditions Michel Lafon. Lodge, R.A. (1993) French: From Dialect to Standard. London and New York: Routledge. ‘Loi no 75-1349 du 31 décembre 1975 relatif à l’emploi de la langue française’. See https:// www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000521788 (accessed 16 February 2015). ‘Loi n° 94-665 du 4 août 1994 relative à l’emploi de la langue française’. See http://www. legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005616341 (accessed 16 February 2015). Luscombe, A. (2009) BBC style: A look at the style guides and language of BBC radio news bulletins. Paper presented at the PALA conference, Roosevelt Academy Middelburg, 28 July−1 August 2009. Luscombe, A. (2011) Sending the right message. Forty years of BBC radio news. PhD thesis University of Utrecht. Merlin-Kajman, H. (2001) L’Excentricité académique: Littérature, institution, société. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Milroy, J. and Milroy L. ([1985] 2012) Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation (4th edn). London/New York: Routledge. ‘Mind your Language’, The Guardian. See http://www.theguardian.com/media/mindyour-language (accessed 9 March 2015). ‘News Style Guide’. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/news-style-guide (accessed June 2014). Oldmixon, J. [1712] Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Oxford about the English Tongue. London: [sold by A. Baldwin]. Poplack, S., Jarmasz, L.G., Dion, N. and Rosen, N. (2015) Searching for Standard French: The construction and mining of the Recueil historique des grammaires du français. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1 (1), 13–55. Quemada, B. (1970−1972) Bibliographie des chroniques de langage publiées dans la presse française. Volume 1. 1950−1965; Volume 2. 1966−1970. Paris: Didier. Quinion, M., World Wide Words. See http://www.worldwidewords.org/index.htm (accessed 9 March 2015). Rickard, P. (1989) A History of the French Language (2nd edn). London: Unwin Hyman. Sampson, R. (ed.) (1993) Authority and the French Language. Münster: Nodus. Straaijer, R. (2014) HUGE: Hyper Usage Guide of English. See www.huge.ullet.net (accessed 9 March 2015). Thérive, A. (1933) Querelles de langage, Volume 2. Paris: Librairie Stock, Delamain & Boutelleau. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1990) Drydens versies van The Tempest en Troilus and Cressida: De bewerker als purist. In A.G.H. Anbeek van der Meijden (ed.) Traditie & Progressie. Handelingen van het 40ste Nederlands Filologencongres (pp. 161–169). Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.

120

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2008) The 1760s: Grammars, grammarians and the booksellers. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.) Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing in Eighteenth-Century England (pp. 101–124). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2011) The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2012a) The codification of English in England. In R. Hickey (ed.) Standards of English. Codified Varieties around the World (pp. 34–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2012b) Codifying the English language. In A. Schröder, U. Busse and R. Schneider (eds) Codifications, Canons, and Curricula. Description and Prescription in Language and Literature (pp. 61–77). Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag. Trudgill, P. (2013) Why there should be more chances to use the word ‘less’. Eastern Daily Express. See http://www.edp24.co.uk/news (accessed 8 April 2013). Vaugelas, C.F. de (1647) Remarques sur la langue françoise utiles à ceux qui veulent bien parler et bien escrire. Paris: Veuve J. Camusat & P. le Petit. Walsh, O. (2012) Linguistic purism in France and Quebec. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge. Weiner, E. (1988) On editing a usage guide. In E.G. Stanley and T.F. Hoad (eds) Words. For Robert Burchfield’s Sixty-Fifth Birthday (pp. 171–183). Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Wey, F. (1845) Remarques sur la langue française au dix-neuvième siècle, sur le style et la composition littéraire, 2 volumes. Paris: F. Didot. Winn, J.A. (1987) John Dryden and his World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

8 ‘A Higher Standard of Correctness than is Quite Desirable’: Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals Rita Queiroz de Barros

Introduction Following some early signs appearing in the 16th century – in which poets had already been instructed to ‘take the vsuall speach of the Court, and that of London and the shires lying about London within lx. myles’ (Puttenham, 1569 [1969]: 121) – linguistic prescriptivism definitely gained ground in Britain in the 18th century. This was the time of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755), Robert Lowth’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762), Thomas Sheridan’s A Dissertation on the Causes of the Difficulties […] in Learning the English Tongue (1761) and John Walker’s Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (1791). Such works, taken together with others, constituted an important body of prescriptive literature that was to become a crucial corpus of reference in the following century, in which Charles Dickens (1812−1870) lived and worked. One of the effects of this latter stage of the standardisation process in Britain was the establishment of an extremely stratified language community. In fact, with the growth of prescriptivism, the values of dialect and especially of accent were definitely reconfigured ‘from their earlier role as an index of geographic affiliation to a new role as an index of social status’ (Agha, 2003: 252). An association of standard English with the social, cultural and economic elite(s) was established accordingly, so that the ‘best’ English started to be seen as both an exclusive code to be kept from the lower classes and as a commodity that could be sold by means of manuals of language use, grammars or

121

122

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

dictionaries (Watts, 2011: 263). Writing during the first half of the 19th century, Catherine Parr Traill (1836: 83) provided eloquent evidence of the former approach, when, observing that ‘the lower order of Yankees […] speak better English than […] persons of the same class in any part of England’, she considered this ‘a fact that we should be unwilling to allow at home’. Though initiated by an originally small group of dictionary and grammar writers, the prescriptive discourse was thus embraced and disseminated by others, especially by the authors of other metalinguistic genres reaching larger audiences, like popular handbooks, penny weeklies and literary works (Agha, 2003: 349). It was in this highly stratified speech community that Dickens worked. This context is known to have had an enormous impact on his novels, in which he displayed a sharp sense of ‘the appropriate in language’ (Quirk, 1974: 36), intermingling different varieties of English and linking appropriate language behaviour to morals. Bearing on this fact, and on Agha’s (2003: 349) reference to the importance of penny weeklies in the diffusion of the prescriptive ideology, this chapter aims to determine whether Dickens’s response to this process also surfaced on his activities as a journal editor, a job he pursued from 1836 until his death in 1870. The analysis of this other important component of Dickens’s work may provide us with both a fuller picture of his contribution and possible resistance to the prescriptive ideology of his time and with a better understanding of this stage of standardisation in Britain.

Prescriptivism and Language Variation in Dickens’s Fiction Though the focus of this chapter is Dickens’s editorial work, it is important to recall the impact of prescriptivism and of the consequent linguistic stratification of Britain in his fiction. The major manifestation of such phenomena in Dickens’s novels is the insistent intermingling of standard and non-standard varieties in the text. In fact, and thanks to an ‘uncannily fine ear for language’ (Sørensen, 1984: 238) and the capacity to explore ‘every available linguistic resource’ (Ingham, 2008), Dickens excelled in the use of sociolects, dialects and idiolects for the characterisation of his fictional personae. Generations of readers remember Sam Weller’s Cockney in The Pickwick Papers (e.g. ‘Yes, I des-say, I should ha’ managed to pick up a respectable livin’, Dickens, 1837: 327); the language of the Americans in Martin Chuzzlewit (e.g. ‘You air a tongue-y person, Gen’ral’, Dickens, 1844: 357; ‘It ain’t all built’, Dickens, 1844: 358); the franglais of the French guest in Our Mutual Friend (e.g. ‘Mais, yees; I know eem’, Dickens, 1865: 139); and the repetitions of Mr Casby in Little Dorrit (e.g. ‘she bears her trials, bears her trials’, Dickens, 1857: 147).

Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals

123

But recourse to different uses of English was not an original trait of Dickens’s style. Though criticised in 19th-century England, non-standard varieties of English also constituted a vital feature of Victorian literature, as shown, among others, by Blake (1981), Chapman (1994) and Hakala (2010). Indeed, literary texts from the period presented a heteroglossic character, as first pointed out by Mikhail Bakhtin ([1930] 1980) as far as the modern European novel is concerned. Furthermore, the intermingling of different language varieties in literary texts was not even a novel practice at this time. The use of non-standard regional dialects of English to portray rustic and comic characters can be traced back at least to the late 14th century, with Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales being generally acknowledged as its earliest example (Blake, 1981; Tolkien, 1934). And, according to recent work on code-switching in historical texts, the juxtaposition of different languages in English literature began even earlier, starting before 1066 and being reinforced after the Anglo-Norman administration took over in that same year, with switches especially from and to English, Anglo-Norman French and Medieval Latin (Wright, 2013). However, the importance of the heteroglossic dramatic convention in Victorian literature cannot be overstressed, and Charles Dickens’s fictional work bears particularly relevant testimony to this fact. In fact, despite the heteroglossic tradition behind and around him, Dickens is credited with some originality in the use of such practice. Some scholars argue that Dickens is more consistent in the presentation of non-standard language than his predecessors and contemporaries. Dickens succeeded, according to Quirk (1974: 23), in recording deviant pronunciation by means of free spelling and the use of abundant hyphens and punctuation marks, and he combined these strategies with a concomitant, unusually high and again consistent ‘range of inflectional, syntactic and lexical features equally appropriate to the regional and social background of his characters’ (Quirk, 1974: 25). The few words of Scadder, the land agent in Martin Chuzzlewit quoted above, are good evidence of this consistency: they denounce non-standard pronunciation in air for are, non-standard morphosyntax in it ain’t for it isn’t and lexical variants by means of the Americanism tongue-y for the British equivalent talkative (Vásquez, 2005: 267). So, and contrary to the opinion of some critics (e.g. Leavis, 1972; Wells, 1981: 333), Dickens did not seem to stick to the traditional stage dialects developed from the Elizabethan age onwards, which portrayed no more than a few stereotypical dialectal marks. This appreciation is supported by Poussa (1999), who re-examines the depiction of the East Anglian dialect of Yarmouth in David Copperfield in the light of historical evidence and modern sociolinguistics. This author concludes that Dickens’s representation of such English is ‘systematic,

124

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

highly serious and appropriate to the older dialect of East Anglia’ (Poussa, 1999: 42). Such a claim is in line with the testimony of Dickens’s contemporaries, namely two anonymous reviewers of his work writing in the Quarterly Review in 1837 and 1839: the first praised ‘Dickens’s felicity in working up the […] unadulterated vernacular idioms of the lower classes in London’; the second considered Boz a ‘regius professor of slang’ and admired Dickens’s ‘expression of the mother-wit, the low humour of the low classes, their Sanskrit, their hitherto unknown tongue’ (as quoted by Quirk, 1974: 6). Furthermore, the vast world of Dickens’s characters asked for the representation of a myriad of varieties of English. Such richness is the second Dickensian particularity that scholars have highlighted. As discussed above, Dickens portrayed Cockney, East Anglian and other British regional varieties; as ‘a master of slang’, he represented situational linguistic diversity; and he was ‘one of the first English writers to realise the potential of American speech’ (Blake, 1981: 159), recreating this first new English in American Notes (e.g. ‘the word Prairie is variously pronounced paraaer, parearer, paroarer’, Dickens, 1842: 81), in Martin Chuzzlewit (as quoted above) and, according to Pound (1947: 125), in ‘Picking up a Pocket Book’ (a short story with an American setting, first published in the American journal Harper’s Weekly in January 1862). Despite such sharp sense of the necessary variation in language, which constitutes a complex response to prescriptivism, Dickens made the use of the standard depend on the characters’ virtuousness. He linked appropriate language behaviour to proper morals, as Victorians are known to have done. Ferguson (1998: 8) invokes a clear example of this practice, highlighting that in Bleak House ‘the precision of Sir Leicester’s speech even when he is incapacitated contrasts strongly with the consistently slurred speech of his healthy but indolent cousin’. Furthermore, Dickens’s novels also attest, ironically most of the time, to close familiarity with the prescriptive discourse and tools of his age. In particular, Dickens made use of metalinguistic statements bearing on the characters’ or the narrator’s own use of language. Quirk (1974) and Sørensen (1984) quote interesting examples of such practice, as in the following excerpt from Dombey and Son (1848): ‘[…] I’ll introduce the party.’ Running downstairs again as fast as she had run up, Miss Tox got the party out of the hackney-coach, and soon returned with it under convoy. It then appeared that she had used the word, not in its legal or business acceptation, when it merely expresses an individual, but as a noun of multitude, or signifying many. (emphasis added) (Dickens, 1848: 17)

Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals

125

The irony here is obviously introduced by the definition of the word party, quoted, according to Sørensen (1984: 238), from Lindley Murray’s English Grammar Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners (1795), still a standard reference work in Dickens’s time. Murray’s name itself is used as the symbol of proper English in Sketches by Boz, where one of the characters in the boarding house is said to have ‘a supreme contempt for the memory of Lindley Murray’ (Dickens, 1839: 301). The examples quoted in the previous paragraphs have shown a qualified response to prescriptivism in Dickens’s fiction. The enthusiastic representation of non-standard varieties and the recognition of the necessary variability in the use of English were accompanied by the acknowledgement and endorsement of the symbolic value of standard English. Dickens was thus one of those fiction writers who contributed to the spread of the ideology of prescriptivism across the British society, especially because of the enormous dissemination potential of his novels, which were first published in weekly journals reaching large audiences and popularised by the numerous public readings that he conducted himself.

Prescriptivism in Dickens’s Journals? Though mainly celebrated for his literary work, Dickens was also a renowned journalist (Douglas-Fairhurst, 2011; Howe, 2012). He was a parliamentary reporter in his early days and then, for many decades, a contributor to and especially the editor of various successful journals, an activity which he pursued with as much dedication as writing. According to Oppenlander (1984: 40), Dickens was a very thorough, painstaking, conscientious and intervening editor, who, despite the support of other editing staff, ‘during his reading tours, […] exchanged letters […] which prove that Dickens, wherever he was, exercised as much supervision as the mails would allow, read all the manuscripts that followed him about and made the necessary corrections’ (Oppenlander, 1984: 43). It is this editorial work that will be the object of the analysis presented below. If Dickens’s recognition of the symbolic value of the standard and familiar codifying tools made its way so evidently into his fiction, and if his sophisticated response to the linguistic prescriptivism of his day surfaced so clearly in his novels, it seems only reasonable to expect such traces to emerge in his editorial activity too. This possibility is reinforced by the fact that Dickens was also a social reformer, often seeking to empower the disadvantaged social strata, so that the magazines he contributed to and was responsible for would publish not only fiction and poetry but also news, socially engaged writings and articles that ‘offered readers instruction on a very wide variety of subjects’ (Oppenlander, 1984: 21). Both the sharing of the standard by means of prescriptive recommendations and the recognition of the value of non-standard varieties could naturally play a

126

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

part in this activity. An analysis of the implications of the standardisation ideology and the encompassing prescriptivism on Dickens’s editorial work can therefore result in a better understanding of the author’s response to those sociolinguistic phenomena and illustrate the contribution of journalistic genres to the constitution of 19th-century language ideology, which Agha (2003: 349) considers to be of central importance. To address this issue, I drew on Dickens Journals Online, a digital platform directed by John Drew and launched in 2012, which includes all the issues of Household Words, Household Narrative and All the Year Round, three weekly magazines edited by Dickens and for which he also wrote. Several automatic keyword searches on this database (using the terms English, language, cockney, grammar, dialect, accent, Lindley Murray, teaching) showed that language is the subject of various articles in those magazines and thus that they can be used to pursue the aims outlined above.

A corpus of articles on language The first step in the analysis presented here was the compilation of a corpus of potentially relevant articles, i.e. the identification of a sample of appropriate journals and essays dealing with language. As for journals, my attention was restricted to the weekly magazines Household Words (HW, published 1850−1859) and All the Year Round (AYR published 1859−1895).1 This choice was motivated not only by the availability of c. 1100 issues of these journals in an easily searchable format in Dickens Journals Online, but also because both were visibly led by Dickens: the legend ‘Conducted by ¦ Charles Dickens’ was a running head on every page. As to the selection of articles from this still massive corpus of texts, it was based upon automatic keyword searches carried out within the database using items like those listed above. These searches were followed by the actual reading of all the texts identified so as to confirm their relevance. Though this procedure does not ensure exhaustiveness, which is not being claimed here, it produced 11 articles from HW and 7 articles from AYR amounting to ca. 50,000 words which all deal with aspects of the English language. The 18 texts are presented in Table 8.1, chronologically arranged. Though they were published under Dickens’s direction, these texts were not necessarily, and indeed often were not, from his own hand. Their authorship is a more or less complex research question, since, as in many contemporary journals, the articles were published anonymously. In the case of HW, Lohrli (1973) managed to identify the authors of most texts on the basis of an office account book maintained by Dickens’s subeditor, W.H. Wills (1810−1880); but such data was scarcer as far as AYR is concerned and the authorship of most of the texts published in this

Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals

127

Table 8.1 Articles on the English language in Household Words (HW) and All the Year Round (AYR) ‘Wisdom in Words’ ‘Slang’ ‘Literal Claims’ ‘The Gift of Tongues’ ‘A Puzzling Gazetteer’ ‘Canton-English’ ‘Our P’s and Q’s’ ‘Walker’ ‘Saxon English’ ‘Names’ ‘Calling Bad Names’ ‘Twisted Words’ ‘Tribes and Tongues’ ‘Depravations of English’ ‘Our Cousins’ Conversation’ ‘Plain English’ ‘A Question of Ancestry’ ‘English Broken to Bits’

HW, IV, No. 87, 208−209, 22/11/1851 HW, VIII, No. 183, 73–78, 24/9/1853 HW, XII, No. 297, 420–422, 1/12/1855 HW, XV, No. 355, 41–43, 10/1/1857 HW, XV, No. 366, 299−300, 28/3/1857 HW, XV, No. 372, 450–452, 9/5/1857 HW, XVI, No. 388, 204−207, 29/8/1857 HW, XVII, No. 425, 523–526, 15/5/1858 HW, XVIII, No. 433, 89–92, 10/7/1858 HW, XVIII, No. 440, 245−247, 28/8/1858 HW, XVIII, No. 443, 332−334, 18/9/1858 AYR, II, No. 29, 62–65, 12/11/1859 AYR, III, No. 68, 418–421, 11/8/1860 AYR, X, No. 234, 179−181, 17/10/1863 AYR, XI, No. 260, 224−227, 16/4/1864 AYR, XX, No. 485, 205−208, 8/8/1868 AYR (NS) I, No. 14, 318−322, 6/3/1869 AYR (NS) III, No. 67, 348−352, 12/3/1870

magazine remains unknown (Oppenlander, 1984: 237). None of the above 18 articles has been definitely attributed to Dickens; and the 11 articles in HW are known to have been written by other contributors to the journal, as indicated in Table 8.2. Table 8.2 Authorship attribution in the selected articles from Household Words ‘Wisdom in Words’ ‘A Puzzling Gazetteer’ ‘Saxon English’ ‘Slang’ ‘Literal Claims’ ‘The Gift of Tongues’ ‘Canton-English’ ‘Our P’s and Q’s’ ‘Walker’ ‘Saxon English’ ‘Names’ ‘Calling Bad Names’

Henry Morley (1822−1894) Henry Morley Henry Morley (with W. L. Rushton) George Sala (1828−1895) Edmund Saul Dixon (1809−1893) W. Jerdan (?–?) William Charles Milne (?–?) James Payn (1830−1898) Jennett Humphreys (?–?) William Lowes Rushton (?–?) (with H. Morley) William Lowes Rushton William Lowes Rushton

128

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Prescriptivists and prescriptivism in the corpus In line with the tradition analysed by Percy (2009), the articles identified above are very often, though not always, motivated by the publishing or republishing of works of more or less scholarly value and which deal with the English language. Explicitly discussed is Walker’s (1791) classic but at the time still very popular Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. The work is the object of a dispassionate description especially meant to collect data on the history of English pronunciation in ‘Walker’ (Humphreys, 1858) and it is furthermore mentioned as a reference on English pronunciation in ‘Slang’ (Sala, 1853: 77). Meiklejohn’s (1866) Easy English Grammar is highly recommended in ‘Plain English’ (Anon., 1868), but two cheap handbooks offering advice on how to avoid stigmatising pronunciation and/or grammar – Never Too Late to Learn and Etiquette for Ladies and Gentlemen – are harshly criticised in the review presented in ‘Our P’s and Q’s’ (Payn, 1857). Lindley Murray, too, is often mentioned (e.g. in ‘Our P’s and Q’s’), but usually as the object of sharp criticism, in particular in ‘Plain English’ (Anon., 1868). Apart from the prescriptivists already mentioned, Trench’s Study of Words (1851), English Past and Present (Trench, 1855) and A Select Glossary of English Words, used Formerly in Senses Different from their Present (Trench, 1859) and Thomas Nicholas’s The Pedigree of the English People Investigated (1868) are discussed and enthusiastically recommended as sources on the history of English (Trench’s works in ‘Saxon English’ [Morley & Rushton, 1858] and especially in ‘Twisted Words’ [Anon., 1859]; Nicholas’s treaty in ‘A Question of Ancestry’ [Anon., 1869]). In addition, in the articles concerned, we can find references to the philologists Max Müller (1823−1900), especially in ‘The Gift of Tongues’ (Jerdan, 1870), and to John Mitchell Kemble (1807−1857), in ‘Literal Claims’ (Dixon, 1855) and ‘Names’ (Rushton, 1858a); both are presented as important authorities on the history of English. The articles under analysis here therefore allude both to more and lesser-known prescriptivists, who are variously assessed, and to scholars influencing the 19th-century British speech community. Given the importance of comparative philology at the time, it is not surprising that most of the articles analysed in this study are devoted to the history of the English language (‘Saxon English’ [Morley & Rushton, 1858]; ‘Names’ [Rushton, 1858a]; ‘A Question of Ancestry’ [Anon., 1869]; ‘Twisted Words’ [Anon., 1859]; ‘The Gift of Tongues’ [Jerdan, 1857]; ‘Walker’ [Humphreys, 1858]; and ‘Tribes and Tongues’ [Anon., 1860]). The timeliness of this topic is explained in ‘Saxon English’ (Morley & Rushton, 1858): During the last twenty or thirty years great attention has been paid by scholars, both in England and in Germany, to the youth of our language; its mother, its nurses, and its schools, have been looked up, and we

Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals

129

know more than we did about its origin. We are beginning, in fact, to understand the History of the Language. (Morley & Rushton, 1858: 90) Other topics are addressed as well, such as lexical change in progress (e.g. ‘Our mother English is threatened with a deluge of barbarisms’ – ‘Depravations of English’ [Anon., 1863: 179]), linguistic nationalism (e.g. ‘the manners, and even the morals of a nation, are impressed upon its words. […] In England generally […] we give to bad things bad names’ – ‘Wisdom in Words’ [Morley, 1851: 208–209]), English language teaching (e.g. ‘We know that our method of teaching the young, our school-books, and our range of lessons, are all equally preposterous’ – ‘Plain English’ [Anon., 1868: 205–206]) and varieties of English (e.g. ‘Canton-English’ [Milne, 1857]). And, just like the reviews of the metalinguistic works mentioned above, the treatment of this miscellany of topics testifies that both prescriptivists and prescriptivism emerge in the journals edited by Dickens and confirms an overall endorsement of the standard language ideology of contemporary Britain. The topic is addressed in ‘Slang’ (Sala, 1853), ‘Calling Bad Names’ (Rushton, 1858b) and ‘Depravations of English’ (Anon., 1863), a meaningful title. These articles address and often criticise the entering of a flood of new words drawn from various sources, as Latinate or Greek vocabulary in scientific and technical discourse as, according to Rushton (1858b: 333), Ilex aquifoliurn for ‘holly’. This tendency made him ask: […] in the purely scientific naming of things in nature, only for some regard to human teeth and human ears; we ask also that second names well fitted for popular use shall be supplied to every object of which men in common can be brought to speak. (Rushton, 1858b: 333) Other new words result from the influence of colonial or former colonial varieties. They come with ‘the arrival of every mail, the extension of every colony, the working of every Australian mine’ and as a result ‘the noble English tongue will become […] a mere dialect of colonial idioms, enervated ultramontanisms and literate slang’ (Sala, 1853: 73). A case in point is the use of the word expect in the sense of ‘suspect’, allegedly imported from America (Anon., 1863: 180). References to these changes are at times accompanied by the recommendation to use native vocabulary instead, since, as another article insists, ‘when a man has anything of his own to say, and is really in earnest that it should be understood, he does not usually […] seek abroad for sesquipedalian words’ (‘Saxon English’ [Morley & Rushton, 1858: 89]). The acknowledgement of such perceived neologisms also gave rise to an explicit appeal for the compilation of a new dictionary of English, four years before the Philological Society took the decision of organising what was to be the Oxford English Dictionary (‘Slang’ [Sala, 1853]):

130

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

[…] a New Dictionary should be compiled, in which all the […] terms now in use among educated men, and made use of in publications of established character, should be registered, etymologised, explained, and stamped with the lexicographic stamp. (Sala, 1853: 75)2 The obviously prescriptive tendency underlying this appeal is validated by articles that deal with geographical varieties of English. Interestingly, and significantly, information on this subject is scarce. There is a precise reference to the American ‘nasal twang’ and to ‘peculiar phrases, idioms, and vocabulary’ of this variety in ‘Our Cousin’s Conversation’ (Anon., 1864: 225); apart from that, there is only room for condescending criticism of distant forms of the language, namely of what is referred to as ‘CantonEnglish’, in the article with the same title (Milne, 1857), and of American English. American English is repeatedly identified as a source of corruption of English in ‘Slang’ (Sala, 1853), ‘A Question of Ancestry’ (Anon., 1869) and especially in ‘Depravations of the English Language’ (Anon., 1863); and American place names are ironically dealt with in ‘A Puzzling Gazetteer’ (Morley, 1857). The author of this last text comments extensively on choices and repetitions (e.g. ‘two Hannibals, seven Alexanders, three Anthonys, and a Pompey, exist in different parts of the States, yet no Cæsar, except as a name for slaves?’ [Morley, 1857: 299]) and considers that ‘the case made out on behalf of reform in the nomenclature of our London streets, is […] whipped throughout their whole land by the North Americans’ (Morley, 1857: 299). The prevailing standard language ideology also dominates ‘Plain English’ (Anon., 1868) and ‘Literal Claims’ (Dixon, 1855). According to the former, ‘it is very much to be regretted that language has been made of little account in our English education; that we have no standard of excellence, either for grammar or pronunciation’ (Anon., 1868: 208), a situation that is felt to have given rise to the contemporary ‘delinquency in pronunciation’ (Anon., 1868: 207). This is also the topic of ‘Literal Claims’ (Dixon, 1855). This article criticises stigmatised forms of nonstandard pronunciation, namely [h] dropping (e.g. ‘Fancy the Queen calling for the ’Igh Steward of her ’Ousehold’ [Dixon, 1855: 421]) and also [h] insertion (e.g. ‘a democratic statesman told his brother politicians to hagitate, hagitate, hagitate, till they had gained their hobject’ [Dixon, 1855: 420]); it ridicules the hypercorrect insertion of [r]’s (e.g. ‘Your darling boys and girls […] will fruitlessly invite their playfellows to spend the evening, if they state that they must go ’ome to the ’ouse, to ’ave dessert with their parr and their marr’ [Dixon, 1855: 422]); and it condemns the weakening of the diphthong [əu] to [ə] in syllables with no primary stress (e.g. ‘the poor fellers swaller poison, which they had better have thrown out of the winder’ [Dixon, 1855: 420]). 3 These are considered as traits of a pronunciation proper of ‘indolent talkers’ (Dixon, 1855: 422) and typical of

Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals

131

social climbers doomed to failure. This article therefore gives very precise information on what shibboleths to avoid in Victorian society. Such insistence on the value of the standard and the corresponding prescriptive approach to language are, however, qualified by other texts or passages, such as ‘Plain English’ (Anon., 1868). Despite the comments quoted above, the article condemns ‘those Juggernauts of the school-room – the makers of grammars written not to be understood’ (Anon., 1868: 206). It criticises in particular Lindley Murray’s ‘dull rules rattling against the mind, like dry bones; without a morsel of flesh to cover their anatomy’ (Anon., 1868: 206); but it also condemns modern authors, who are considered ‘even more pedantic than Lindley Murray, and infinitely more bewildering’ (Anon., 1868: 206). ‘Our P’s and Q’s’ follows the same line, condemning blind prescriptivism, and pointing out that: mistakes in speech are of continual occurrence, and are perpetrated in all classes of society. Our neighbour, the barrister […]; the M.P. over the way […]; the author in our second-floor […]: and the clergyman at the chapel. (Payn, 1857: 204) The purpose of that article is to denounce the absurdities of three normative works that had recently been published (Never Too Late to Learn, The New Letter Writer and Etiquette for Ladies and Gentlemen), one of which is claimed to ‘raise ungrammatical ghosts’ and ‘aim […] at the adoption’ of ‘a higher standard of correctness than is quite desirable’ (Payn, 1857: 205). And though it is the moralistic tone of the letter writing manual that dominates Payn’s criticism of that work, the inappropriateness of language according to writer, addressee and topic is not ignored: As a father who has both boys and girls of his own, I should receive any such epistles as these with a prolonged whistle. No university man, not even a freshman, writes of ‘moving in the best set’ in his college. (Payn, 1857: 205) Also in agreement with this lucid view of language use is ‘Slang’ (Sala, 1853). Defining the concept as ‘words not to be found in standard dictionaries, not authorised by writings received as classics, and for which no literary or grammatical precedents can be adduced’ (Sala, 1853: 75), the author includes in this category not only the ‘unauthorised’ jargon of ‘brigands, burglars, beggars, impostors, and swindlers’, ‘mariners’ and ‘mechanics’ (Sala, 1853: 74), but also ‘the omnipresent slang […] [that] through all grades and professions of life runs’ (Sala, 1853: 77). He thus identifies the following as arenas and users of what he labels ‘authorised’ slang: parliamentary debates, barristers in their robes, every mess table, every bar mess, every college commons, every club dining room, the very

132

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

top of the social Olympus (and its unmeaning gibberish of Gallicisms), the world of criticism and the stage, both before and behind the curtain (Sala, 1853: 76). Considering that slang cannot be avoided, the author insists that all slang words used by his contemporaries should, as quoted above, ‘be registered, etymologised, explained, and stamped with the lexicographic stamp’ (Sala, 1853: 75). The call to register both authorised and unauthorised jargon is accompanied by the presentation of suggestions on more than 15 items (Sala, 1853: 75–78), such as the adjective drunk, the nouns money, man, gin, gentleman, thief, horse, donkey, policeman, hand and coat and the verbs to steal, to go or run away, to beat and to pawn. The following synonyms are listed for the first two items: •

•

drunk – tipsy, inebriated, intoxicated, in liquor, disguised therein, lushy, bosky, buffy, boozy, mops and brooms, half-seas-over, far-gone, tight, not able to see a hole through a ladder, three sheets in the wind, foggy, screwed, hazy, sewed up, moony, muddled, muzzy, swipey, lumpy, obfuscated, muggy, beery, winey, slewed, on the ran-tan, on the re-raw, groggy, ploughed, cut, in his cups;4 money – tin, rhino, blunt, rowdy, stumpy, dibbs, browns, stuff, ready, mopusses, shiners, dust, chips, chinkers, pewter, horsenails, brads.

As the examples listed testify, the prescriptive drive inherent in any appeal for a dictionary is here toned down by the informality of some of the synonyms suggested, which are very often proper slang words. This article therefore bears witness to the ‘fascination with the colloquial’ identified by Bailey (1996: 183) in 19th-century England and to the recognition of the appropriateness of variability in language use.

Conclusion The main goal of this chapter was to determine whether Dickens’s endorsement of the prescriptive ideology also surfaced in his activities as a journal’s editor. The analysis presented here confirms this possibility: the journals he edited testify to the recognition of the symbolic value of standard English (e.g. ‘Depravations of English’ [Anon., 1863]), provide their readers with cues to identify and avoid stigmatised shibboleths (e.g. ‘Literal Claims’ [Dixon, 1855]), spread information on characteristics of proper English (e.g. ‘Saxon English’ [Morley & Rushton, 1858]) and express approval on some of the prescriptive tools of the time (e.g. ‘Plain English’ [Anon., 1868]). This study has therefore also shown that Dickens contributed to the prescriptivism dominating 19th-century Britain by means of both his fiction and his work as an editor, and has thus contributed

Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals

133

to the role played by penny weeklies in this process, as claimed by Agha (2003: 349). However, and contrary to the mainstream standardising discourse of the time, some of the articles that Dickens agreed to publish reveal a very lucid and also very modern perception of the inescapable and actually desirable variability in the use of language according to speakers and situations as far as lexical choices are concerned. That is the case with ‘Slang’ (Sala, 1853), ‘Our P’s and Q’s’ (Payn, 1857) and ‘Plain English’ (Anon., 1868). This understanding, which is in line with Dickens’s use of (non-)standard varieties of English in his fiction, is brilliantly summed up in the condemnation of the use of ‘a higher standard of correctness than is quite desirable’. Though these are James Payn’s words (1857: 205), they undoubtedly would have deserved Charles Dickens’s approval.

Notes (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

AYR continued being published after Dickens’s death under the direction of his son. The author of this appeal is George Augustus Sala, who worked mainly as a journalist and contributed in particular to the Daily Telegraph, often from abroad (cf. ‘George Augustus Sala’, Dickens Journals Online). In view of the sources I was able to consult, any close connection of this writer to Richard Chevenix Trench is unlikely, which excludes the possibility of Sala reproducing Trench in the text quoted above. Though less well known than the two previous aspects, the weakening of the diphthong [əu] in syllables with no primary stress is identified by Brook (1970: 121) as characteristic of the speech of ‘low-life London characters’ in Dickens’s novels. That is the case of Sam Weller in The Pickwick Papers (e.g. ‘I never see such a feller’ – Dickens, 1837: 229). This suggestion and the list presented may have been influenced by the so-called ‘Drinkers Dictionary’, commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin (1706−1790) and comprising 229 expressions, which was first published in January 1737 in the Pennsylvania Gazette. The authorship of the list is, however, questioned by Berson (2006), who found a very similar one in an earlier publication.

References Primary sources

Anon. (1854) A New Letter Writer for the Use of Gentlemen and Ladies. London and New York: Routledge and Co. Anon. (1859) Twisted words. All the Year Round II (29), 62–65. Anon. (1860) Tribes and tongues. All the Year Round III (68), 418–442. Anon. (1863) Depravations of English. All the Year Round X (234), 179−181. Anon. (1864) Our cousins’ conversation. All the Year Round XI (260), 224−227. Anon. (1868) Plain English. All the Year Round XX (485), 205−208. Anon. (1869) A question of ancestry. All the Year Round (New Series) I (14), 318–322. Dickens, C. (1837) The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club. London: Chapman and Hall (edition consulted: J. Manis (ed.) (2007−2013) The Pickwick Papers. See

134

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/pickwickpapers6x9.pdf (accessed 17 October 2014)). Dickens, C. (1839) Sketches by Boz. London: Chapman and Hall (edition consulted: J. Manis (ed.) (2000−2013). See http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/ boz.pdf (accessed 17 October 2014)). Dickens, C. (1842) American Notes for General Circulation. London: Chapman and Hall (edition consulted: J. Manis (ed.) (2007−2013). See http://www2.hn.psu.edu/ faculty/jmanis/dickens/AmericanNotes6x9.pdf (accessed 17 October 2014)). Dickens, C. (1844) Life and Adventures of Martin Chuzzlewit. London: Chapman & Hall (edition consulted: J. Manis (ed.) (2000−2013). See http://www2.hn.psu.edu/ faculty/jmanis/dickens/chuzzlew.pdf (accessed 17 October 2014)). Dickens, C. (1848) Dombey and Son. London: Bradbury & Evans (edition consulted: J. Manis (ed.) (2000−2013), Volume I. See http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/ dickens/dombey.pdf (accessed 17 October 2014)). Dickens, C. (1857) Little Dorrit. London: Bradbury and Evans (edition consulted: J. Manis (ed.) (2000−2013). See http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/dorritco. pdf (accessed 17 October 2014)). Dickens, C. (1865) Our Mutual Friend. London: Chapman and Hall (edition consulted: J. Manis (ed.) (2007−2013). See http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/ OurMutualFriend6x9.pdf (accessed 17 October 2014)). Dixon, E.S. (1855) Literal claims. Household Words XII (297), 420–422. Drew, J. (ed.) (2012) Dickens Journals Online. See http://www.djo.org.uk (accessed April– May 2013 and October 2014). Humphreys, J. (1858) Walker. Household Words XVII (425), 523–526. Jerdan, W. (1857) The gift of tongues. Household Words XV (355), 41–43. Johnson, S. (1755) A Dictionary of the English Language. London: J. and K. Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch, L. Hawes, A. Millar and R. and J. Dodsley. Lowth, R. (1762) A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. London: A. Millar and R. and J. Dodsley. Meiklejohn, J. (1866) An Easy English Grammar in Four Parts. London: Simpkin & Marshall. Milne, W.C. (1857) Canton-English. Household Words XV (372), 450–452. Morley, H. (1851) Wisdom in words. Household Words IV (87), 208−209. Morley, H. (1857) A puzzling gazetteer. Household Words XV (366), 299−300. Morley, H. and Rushton, W.L. (1858) Saxon English. Household Words XVIII (433), 89–92. Murray, L. (1795) English Grammar Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. York: Wilson, Spence, and Mawman. Nicholas, T. (1868) The Pedigree of the English People Investigated. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Co. See https://archive.org/stream/pedigreeofenglis00nicorich/ pedigreeofenglis00nicorich_djvu.txt (accessed 17 October 2014). Payn, J. (1857) Our P’s and Q’s. Household Words XVI (388), 204−207. Puttenham, G. (1569) The Arte of English Poesie. London: Richard Field. (Edition consulted: R.C. Alston (ed.) (1969) English Linguistics 1500–1800, A Collection of Facsimile Reprints. Menston: Scolar Press). Rushton, W.L. (1858a) Names. Household Words XVIII (440), 245−247. Rushton, W.L. (1858b) Calling bad names. Household Words XVIII (443), 332−334. Sala, G. (1853) Slang. Household Words VIII (183), 73–78. Sheridan, T. (1761) A Dissertation on the Causes of the Difficulties, which Occur, in Learning the English Tongue. London: R. and J. Dodsley. Trench, R.C. (1851) On the Study of Words. Five Lectures. London: J.W. Parker and Son. Trench, R.C. (1855) English Past and Present. Five Lectures. New York: Redfield. Trench, R.C. (1859) A Select Glossary of English Words, Used Formerly in Senses Different from Their Present (2nd edn). London: Parker.

Linguistic Prescriptivism in Charles Dickens’s Journals

135

Walker, J. (1791) A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. Menston: Scolar Press, 1968.

Secondary sources

Agha, A. (2003) The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23, 231−273. Bailey, R.W. (1996) Nineteenth-Century English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Bakhtin, M.M. ([1930] 1980) From the prehistory of novelistic discourse. In M. Holquist (ed. and transl.) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (pp. 41−83). Austin, TX/ London: University of Texas Press. Berson, J.S. (2006) The source for Benjamin Franklin’s ‘The Drinkers Dictionary’ (and was it Mather Byles?). American Speech 81 (2), 164−179. Blake, N.F. (1981) Non-Standard Language in English Literature. London: André Deutsch. Brook, G.L. (1970) The Language of Dickens. London: André Deutsch. Chapman, R. (1994) Forms of Speech in Victorian Fiction. London: Longman. Douglas-Fairhurst, R. (2011) Becoming Dickens: The Invention of a Novelist. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Ferguson, S.L. (1998) Drawing fictional lines: Dialect and narrative in the Victorian novel. Style 32 (1), 1−17. Hakala, T.S. (2010) Working dialect: Nonstandard voices in Victorian literature. PhD thesis. University of Michigan. See http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/ handle/2027.42/78771/thakala_1.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed 17 October 2014). Howe, R.M. (2012) Charles Dickens: The first popular media titan. Journal of Media and Communication Studies 4 (4), 60–69. Ingham, P. (2008) The language of Dickens. In D. Paroissien (ed.) A Companion to Charles Dickens (n.p.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/9780470691908.ch8/summary. Leavis, Q.D. (1972) Dickens and Tolstoy: The case for a serious view of David Copperfield. In F.R. Leavis and Q.D. Leavis (eds) Dickens the Novelist (pp. 60−164). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Lohrli, A. (1973) Household Words: Table of Contents, List of Contributors and their Contributions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Oppenlander, E.A. (1984) Dickens’ All the Year Round: Descriptive Index and Contributor List. Troy, NY: Whitston Publishing Company. Percy, C. (2009) Periodical reviews and the rise of prescriptivism: The Monthly (1749−1844) and Critical Review (1756−1817) in the eighteenth century. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade and W. van der Wurff (eds) Current Issues in Late Modern English (pp. 117–150). Bern: Peter Lang. Pound, L. (1947) The American dialect of Charles Dickens. American Speech 22 (2), 124−130. Poussa, P. (1999) Dickens as sociolinguist. Dialect in David Copperfield. In I. Taavitsainen, G. Melchers and P. Pahta (eds) Writing in Non-Standard English (pp. 27–43). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Quirk, R. (1974) Charles Dickens, linguist. In R. Quirk (ed.) The Linguist and the English Language (pp. 1–36). London: Edward Arnold. Sørensen, K. (1984) Charles Dickens. Linguistic innovator. English Studies 3, 237–247. Traill, C.P. (1836) The Backwoods of Canada. London: C. Knight. Tolkien, J.R.R. (1934) Chaucer as a philologist: The reeve’s tale. Transactions of the Philological Society 33 (1), 1–70. Vásquez, A. (2005) Charles Dickens makes fun of idiolects in Martin Chuzzlewit. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 18, 261–273.

136

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Watts, R. (2011) Language Myths and the History of English. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Wells, J.C. (1981) Accents of English: Volume 2 – The British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, L. (2013) Bilingualism and text transmission in medieval texts: Bilingualism in medieval England. Paper presented at the Workshop Bilingualism and Text Transmission in Medieval Texts, University of Utrecht, May 2013.

9 Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815−1830) Gijsbert Rutten and Rik Vosters

Introduction The years 1804 and 1805 are sociolinguistic landmarks in the history of Dutch. In 1804, the first official spelling of Dutch was published, for which the government had approached Matthijs Siegenbeek (1774−1854), a professor of Dutch from Leiden. A year later, the first official grammar of Dutch was published by the Rotterdam minister Pieter Weiland (1754−1842). Governmental interference with language and teaching had been a central topic in (semi-)public debates in learned societies and periodicals from the 1750s onwards, resulting in officially regulated language standardisation and a series of laws aimed at educational reforms in the early 1800s (see Rutten [2012] for a recent overview). Both the spelling and the grammar were meant for the educational and administrative domains. The final decades of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century marked the transition from language planning as a private activity targeted towards an adult audience with a particular interest in language, to language policy as a public matter of national concern (Rutten, 2009). In this transition, prescription is a keyword. Grammars and orthographies of Dutch had been published since the 16th century, but after 1804, prescriptive language guides and schoolbooks based on the official regulations flooded the linguistic book market. Siegenbeek and Weiland themselves actively participated in this development. In 1805, Siegenbeek published an extract of his 1804 spelling ten dienste der scholen ‘for the use of schools’, which was reissued in 1822. In 1805, Weiland had published not only his Dutch 137

138

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

grammar, but also the beginselen ‘principles’ of the grammar as well as a short version ten dienste der scholen. All three books went through several editions in the first half of the 19th century. The school grammar, for example, saw its 11th edition in 1857. At the time of this first official Dutch language policy, the northern and southern Low Countries were politically separated, as they had been since the late 16th century. The northern Low Countries, roughly speaking the present-day Netherlands, were a satellite state of France called the Bataafse Republiek ‘Batavian Republic’. The southern Low Countries (present-day Belgium and Luxembourg) were part of the French Empire. The separation came to a temporary halt at the Congress of Vienna in 1814−1815 when it was decided that the Low Countries would be brought together into the Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden ‘United Kingdom of the Netherlands’ (UKN), in order to form a buffer state to the north of France. In 1830, the Belgian Revolution split up the UKN into the present-day situation of three separate countries, Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. In the southern Low Countries, located north and south of the RomanceGermanic language border, both Dutch and French were widely used in formal and informal contexts, and in spoken and written communication. When in 1815, King William acceded to the throne as the first monarch of the UKN, roughly three quarters of its inhabitants were native speakers of some variety of Dutch, about half of them from the north and half from the south.1 With nearly 1.5 million francophones in the Walloon-Belgian territories, French was the largest minority language in the UKN, followed by German, which was only spoken in a small native-speaker community in the south-east. Although we will not discuss the government’s language policy in detail (see Blauwkuip, 1920; de Jonghe, 1967), its main aim was the spread of Dutch as the exclusive national language. As French had become the most important language among the higher social classes, especially in the Flemish-Belgian territories (Vandenbussche, 2001), Dutch was to be the dominant language in various formal domains. In 1819, the government decreed that, from 1823 onwards, written communication in the legal and administrative domains needed to take place in Dutch only. Both the judiciary and the public administration thus became effectively ‘Dutchified’ (Van Goethem, 1990; Vanhecke, 2007). The Dutchification policy in the southern Netherlands led to a stream of publications on language. In the French-speaking regions, numerous grammars and orthographies appeared, introducing and explaining Dutch language norms; these were usually based on Siegenbeek (1804) and Weiland (1805) (Janssens & Steyaert, 2008). In the Dutch-speaking parts too, language norms were discussed and prescribed in a series of language guides, pamphlets, grammars, orthographies and schoolbooks (Vosters, 2011). These texts did not always strictly follow the northern prescriptions proposed by Siegenbeek (1804) and Weiland (1805), as the second half of

Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815−1830)

139

the 18th century had seen the rise of a separate southern Dutch linguistic identity, characterised by different spelling conventions from northern practice (Rutten, 2011, and see below). It is against the background of the reunion of the northern and southern parts of the Low Countries under William I, his Dutchification policy, the concomitant encounter of southern and northern Dutch writing traditions and the young but firm northern tradition of official prescription that we wish to discuss one of the linguistic publications that came out in the southern Netherlands during this period.2 In 1823, an anonymous publication appeared, called Iets over de Hollandsche tael, noch voor, noch tegen, latende elk dienaengaende vry en verlet als naer goedvinden, in eenige familiaire brieven ‘Something about the Hollandic language, neither in favour, nor against it, leaving each person free in his own judgment on the matter, in the form of several private letters’ (Figure 9.1). The author was later shown to be the lawyer Joseph Bernard Cannaert from Ghent

Figure 9.1 The cover of Cannaert’s booklet (Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent, BIB.G.008246/48)

140

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

(1768−1848).3 The booklet, containing about 45 numbered pages, offers the reader an overview of the written language norms of the north, as codified by Siegenbeek (1804) and Weiland (1805). These ‘Hollandic’ norms are contrasted with what the author assumes to be the typical language use of the southern Netherlands, and thus offers a most interesting window into early 19th-century southern Dutch. We will first give a broad overview of the sociolinguistic landscape in The Netherlands at the time, focusing on language planning, language ideology and language norms. We will then use the observations in Cannaert (1823) as a touchstone of language use in early 19th-century Flanders, comparing his observations to the results from a corpus analysis based on a collection of manuscripts from the period. These findings will lead to a wider discussion concerning early 19th-century southern Dutch as represented in language norms, prescriptive ideologies and actual language use of the period.

Language Planning It is unclear what variety of Dutch the government wanted to propagate in the context of its Dutchification policy between 1815 and 1830. A remark in the margin of a constitutional bill from 1815 demonstrates that the King himself employed a broad definition of the concept, when he wrote: Nationale taal Nederduitsch zijnde Hollandsch, Vlaamsch, Brabantsch ‘National language Dutch being Hollandic, Flemish, Brabantine’ (Colenbrander, 1909: 502). Whereas Siegenbeek (1804) and Weiland (1805) had been the official norms in the north for almost two decades, there were no official language norms for the south. This is evident from the following comment of the then Minister of Education A.R. Falck to his colleague C.F. van Maanen from the Justice Department in 1822: Overigens zoude ik van oordeel zijn dat vooralsnog geene verordeningen van gouvernementswege moeten plaats hebben ter verandering of wijziging, op hoog gezag, van het Vlaamsche taalgebruik, waaromtrent men aan den tijd en aan eene voortgezette taalbeoefening door de Vlamingen moet overlaten, eene bepaalde meening te doen veld winnen en te vestigen For that matter, my judgment would be that, for the time being, no ordinances from the government would be in place to change or modify, on the highest authority, the Flemish use of the language. On this subject, time and continued practice of the language by the Flemings themselves need to determine which opinion will gain ground and establish itself. (Colenbrander, 1915, VIII-2: 584–585) Around the same time, the public prosecutor from Bruges, H.J. Schuermans, noted that De wijze, volgens welke de landstaal gebezigd of geschreven wordt, is aan het gouvernement meer onverschillig ‘the way in which the national language is

Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815−1830)

141

used or written, is of less concern to the government’ (Colenbrander, 1915, VIII-2: 578). Despite such comments showing that there was no official requirement for Dutch-speaking southerners to adopt the Northern language norms, Siegenbeek (1804) and Weiland (1805) were well known in the Flemish provinces. Even if they did not enjoy any official status there, their influence is clear from the many pamphlets, public lectures, newspaper articles and other publications which appeared on the topic. The language ideologies which were shaped and reinforced in these publications will be dealt with in the next section.

Language Ideology Language was a frequent topic in the UKN. Soon after the withdrawal of the French troops in 1814, a large debate ensued on the desirability of Dutch as the new official language. The former Brussels attorney and court clerk Pierre Barafin (1774−1841) summarises the objections of many francophone southerners in his Sur la Langue Nationale (1815). In this pamphlet, he argued that Flemish and Hollandic are two different, mutually unintelligible languages, leaving French as the only real national language uniting all educated people (De Smedt, 2010). Other publications defending French against the perceived threat of Dutch as a new lingua franca followed, such as Plasschaert (1817) and Defrenne (1829). Dutchspeaking southerners mostly welcomed the Dutchification policy. Many Flemish grammarians and commentators hailed the new status of Dutch as a national language, following the earlier exhilarations of J.F. Willems (1793−1846): Triumph! – onz’ nederduytsche tael / Is van het fransche juk onthéven, / En zal, hoe zeer den nyd ook smael’, / Haer’ ouden luyster doen herleéven! ‘Triumph! – Our Dutch language can finally cast off the French yoke, and will relive its old glory, even in the face of derisive envy!’.4 Before long, however, in the eyes of many Flemish commentators the conflict between French and Dutch was overshadowed by the perceived differences between northern and southern varieties of Dutch. Already since the start of the UKN, many southerners had noticed a number of differences between the language used in the south and the north, most likely due to intensified contact with the northern variety, which had spread through the south as the variety used in government notices, legal documents and progovernment newspapers. From a modern linguistic perspective, however, assuming a clear north−south dichotomy is problematic because regional variation was abundant in both the north and the south, especially in the spoken language. Nonetheless, in the southern metalinguistic consciousness of the time, we observe a clear schematisation of the sociolinguistic landscape, juxtaposing ‘Flemish’ – or sometimes ‘Brabantine’ – and ‘Hollandic’. When southern commentators mentioned ‘Hollandic’ or ‘Northern Dutch’, they seemed to refer to the official northern norms of Siegenbeek (1804) and

142

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Weiland (1805). Consequently – consciously or subconsciously – they denied the existence of northern variability, both in actual writing and in terms of prescribed language norms (Vosters et al., 2010). The central position of the northern norms in early 19th-century southern metalinguistic discourse cannot be underestimated, particularly with respect to orthography: most authors discussing the differences and similarities between northern and southern varieties focused exclusively on spelling. The north−south opposition reflects an orthographical divide between a supposedly typical Northern variant x versus a supposedly typical Southern counterpart x’. In this way, a fairly limited number of minor orthographical differences grew into symbolic markers of northern and southern language use in general, and became salient at a pragmatic level (Errington, 1985; Hickey, 2000). Writers started to use orthographical features to stress broader linguistic differences, thus aiming to legitimise cultural, political and even religious differences (cf. Jaffe, 2000: 502–503; see further Vosters et al., 2012; Vosters, 2013).

Language Norms The market for schoolbooks and spelling guides experienced an enormous growth during the years of the UKN: not only did guidebooks for non-native learners of Dutch appear all over the south (Janssens & Steyaert, 2008), but linguistic publications aimed at native speakers of Dutch flourished as well. Here too publications on orthography boomed: some, though called Spraek-konst ‘grammar’, dealt almost exclusively with spelling (e.g. Ter Bruggen, 1818). While in the second half of the 18th century there was still a clear southern standard in full development (cf. Rutten & Vosters, 2010a; Rutten, 2011), separate from – but in close contact with – the writing tradition of the north, the new sociolinguistic context of the reunified Netherlands from 1815 onwards allowed for an increasing influence of the northern language norms in the south, largely representing the norms proposed by Siegenbeek (1804). We have dealt with this evolution elaborately elsewhere (Rutten & Vosters, 2010a, 2010b, 2011) and here we will summarise the main findings. Focusing mainly on prescriptions for orthographical features such as the spelling of the dipthongised /ei/ with or (e.g. wyn or wijn ‘wine’) and vowel lengthening in closed syllables, either by adding or by doubling the original vowel (e.g. zwaard or zwaerd ‘sword’), we were able to demonstrate a surprisingly high degree of uniformity in southern prescriptive works predating 1815. Moreover, the southern norms diverge from Siegenbeek (1804) on every single feature under investigation. However, in publications from the period of the UKN, published between 1815 and 1830, we see that some southern features still stood their ground, but that new forms in line with the northern norms gained ground across all areas of the south.

Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815−1830)

143

It is in this context, with two separate northern and southern written language norms, that a work like Cannaert (1823) could arise. It was not, however, a unique publication in terms of its set-up and goals. Willems (1824) likewise presented a comparative overview of northern and southern language features, though more specifically to serve as a basis for his own system of orthographical norms. Similarly, De Simpel (1827) provided his readers with an elaborate overview of linguistic differences between northern and southern Dutch, although he made no secret of his strong preference for the Siegenbeek spelling norms (see also Vosters, 2011: 160−177).

Language Norms in Cannaert (1823) The existence of several works comparing northern and southern writing practices, aiming to introduce the Hollandic language norms to a southern audience, shows that there must have been a need for such publications at the time. Cannaert (1823: 7) explicitly claims to respond to this demand by publishing a kortbondig, maer vooral, goedkoop boeksken ‘short, but above all cheap little booklet’. In a fictional dialogue with a sceptical reader, he refutes a number of arguments from Flemings against learning the Hollandic tongue (Cannaert, 1823: 4–7). Among other things, he deals with the argument that too much effort would be required to acquire a new variety of the language, particularly at an advanced age, and the high price of books from Holland. The debunking of such arguments, Cannaert (1823: 4) argues, is aimed at Flemish southerners who claim never to read any books from Holland, and who would prefer to read French translations rather than the Dutch originals of laws or edicts issued by the government. In all this, Cannaert’s main argument seems to be the need for traditional second language acquisition: the entire publication, over de Hollandsche tael ‘about the Hollandic language’, is indeed written in a variety which the author characterises as southern, so as het hollandsch niet te gebruyken, alvorens hetzelve eenigzins te kennen ‘not to use the Hollandic variety already, before it is known’ (Cannaert, 1823: 8). After the introductory dialogue, Cannaert discusses nearly 50 features which he categorises as typically southern, along with their northern – or rather: Siegenbeekian – counterparts. We selected 15 features for further discussion here: five mainly orthographical issues, five related to pronunciation differences and five morphosyntactic ones. Table 9.1 summarises their representation in Cannaert (1823), along with representative examples of the allegedly northern and southern variants. Is what Cannaert describes representative of southern language use, and how representative are the characteristics he lists at the time of the UKN? To test this, we searched for the features listed in Table 9.1 in a corpus of legal and administrative texts from the 1820s. This digitised collection of handwritten documents was recently compiled and transcribed, and

144

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Table 9.1 Schematic overview of 15 linguistic features discussed in Cannaert (1823) I. Orthography

Southern

Example

Northern

Example

Diphthong /ei/ Long /a:/ in closed syllable Dentals in past pple (voiced stems) Initial /z/ /ks/ in non-loanwords II. Phonology WGc *ĕ + r + dental

ey ae

weyde ‘meadow’ aldaer ‘there’

ei aa

weide aldaar

-d/-t

bemint ‘loved’ geleefd ‘lived’ ses ‘six’ blixem ‘lightning’ Example peird ‘horse’ peerd rekeninge ‘bill’

-d z-ksNorthern -aa-

bemind geleefd zes bliksem Example paard

-ø

rekening

-u-eg-uuNorthern no

burger gezegd vuur Example Ik ø weet het niet. de meester stukje fluitje

s-xSouthern -ei-ee-e

Final schwa in fem. nouns Palatalisation of OGc *ŭ Past pple in WGc *ĕgi Unrounding of OGc. *eu III. Morphosyntax Bipartite negation

-o-ey-ieSouthern Yes

Masc. nom. sg. articles

-(e)n

Diminutives

-(s)ke(n) -(d/t)jen

Reflexive pronoun (3rd p. sg.)

hem

Conjunctions

-de -te

borger ‘citizen’ gezeyd ‘said’ vier ‘fire’ Example Ik en weet het niet. den meester ‘the master/teacher’ stukske ‘small piece’ fluytjen ‘small flute’ Hy heeft hem bedrogen gevonden ‘he found himself deceived” ende ‘and’ ofte ‘or’

-ø -(t/p)je

zich

-ø -ø

Hij heeft zich bedrogen gevonden en of

contains texts originating from files of the so-called Courts of Assize, containing: (1) police reports, drawn up by local police constables, rangers or other members of the municipal authorities; (2) interrogation reports by scribes of district-level courthouses; (3) indictments, issued by the professional scribes of one of the high courts; (4) a number of letters, usually between different members of the prosecution; (5) declarations by witnesses, bailiffs, former employers, etc.

Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815−1830)

145

All southern provinces are represented in the collection, with an equal amount of material per region from urban centres and various local towns or villages. The corpus contains 225 unique documents, written by 132 scribes and amounting to 101,454 words, excluding editorial and linguistic markup (see http://www.digitalebouwstoffen.be for more information on this Corpus negentiende-eeuws juridisch taalgebruik 1814−1830). The material also has a built-in diachronic dimension, with texts from 1823, when Cannaert’s Iets over de Hollandsche tael was first published, and from 1829, at the end of the Dutchification policy of the UKN. For most localities, this means that the documents under investigation are among the first of their kind to be written in Dutch since the end of French rule (1794−1814). These manuscripts offer insight into the form of the language during the early years of the Dutch government. Moreover, they allow us to compare them with the situation at the end of the UKN (1829), and to see if any changes occurred after the years of political union between north and south. The corpus was searched for both the supposedly typical southern and the prototypically northern forms of the 15 variables in Table 9.1. 5 Figures 9.2–9.4 show the results for each group of features. The different bars present the relative frequency of the supposedly southern variant, both in total and split up for the two years under investigation (1823 and 1829). For the spelling variants shown in Figure 9.2, we can note the limited frequency of the forms which Cannaert (1823) labelled as prototypically southern. The Siegenbeekian spelling variants are clearly dominant in each of the cases. The supposedly southern , , ,6 and spellings are, in other words, not prototypically southern at all. A second

60 Total 1823 1829

Relative use of southern variant (%)

50

40

36% 32%

30

29%

27% 24%

22%

21%

20%

20 14% 10

0

7%

/ei/ as 1110 tokens

5%

/a:/ as 4402 tokens

4% Past. Part 676 tokens

/z/ as 136 tokens

6%

5%

6%

/ks/ as 175 tokens

Figure 9.2 Relative use of the southern orthographical variants (1823 and 1829)

146

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

60

50 Relative use of southern variant (%)

Total 1823 1829

50%

40

36% 31% 28%

30

24% 21% 18%

20

18% 14%

13%

11%

11% 10

6% 2%

0%

0 Wgm. e+rD as 227 tokens

Retention final schwa 1132 tokens

Unpalatalized Ogm. u 197 tokens

Part. with /ei/ forms 308 tokens

Unrounded Ogm. eu 23 tokens

Figure 9.3 Relative use of the southern phonological variants (1823 and 1829) 60 55%

Total 1823 1829

Relative use of southern variant (%)

50

40

38% 32%

30 25%

20

16%

25% 17%

17% 10%

10

1%

0

Bipartite negation 71 tokens

Nom. Sg. M. art. -n 168 tokens

Diminutives with -k105 tokens

1%

1%

Reflex. pron. ‘hem’ 269 tokens

2%

3%

1%

Conj. ‘ende’/’ofte’ 3470 tokens

Figure 9.4 Relative use of the southern morphosyntactic variants (1823 and 1829)

observation concerns the striking differences between 1823 and 1829. There is a strong decline in the supposedly southern variants. Nonetheless, the southern variants are not extremely frequent in 1823 either: only about a third of all tokens is not yet in agreement with the Siegenbeek norms. The features based on pronunciation differences in Figure 9.3 exhibit very

Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815−1830)

147

similar trends. The so-called southern variants are not very frequent in 1823 to start with, and their use has decreased even further over a mere six-year period. The morphosyntactic variables in Figure 9.4 show the same pattern, although the variability between features is larger here than for the other sets. Bipartite negation is the most frequent southern variant, with slightly over half of all instances occurring in 1823, but no more than 16% by 1829. The articles in -n and the k-diminutives, which both appear in most southern dialects, show a more representative pattern: a relatively low number of instances occur in 1823, having decreased even further by 1829. The last two features which Cannaert considered to be typically southern barely appear in that form in the corpus. That some forms which Cannaert (1823) labelled as southern did not appear very frequently in the south may not be surprising if we take their spread in the present-day local dialects into account. Some phonological and morphosyntactic features today only occur in specific areas of the southern Dutch-speaking provinces (see Vosters & Rutten, 2011). Other features, such as the n-articles and k-diminutives, while not very frequent in our corpus, occur throughout much of the south. Cannaert clearly claims to be describing the written language of the south, and even though some forms may have had a more limited spread than others in the local spoken dialects, most supposedly southern forms are fairly rare in our corpus of written documents.

Prescriptivism and the Myth of Southern Language Decay Overall, we may conclude that many of Cannaert’s prototypically southern features hardly appear to be characteristic of southern Dutch language use – at least as measured in a corpus of handwritten texts from the legal domain, with which Cannaert as a lawyer must have been familiar. Many of the features he mentions had already been replaced by their Siegenbeekian counterparts by 1823, and had continued to disappear by 1829. We assume that the intensified contact with northern varieties of Dutch at this time of political reunification must have had an impact on language use in the south, although the earlier documents also show that the situation at the outset of the Dutchification under William I cannot have been as distinctly southern or locally coloured as the prescriptivist and metalinguistic discourse at the time would lead us to believe. But if Cannaert did not draw his examples from the legal usage of the period, what did he base his observations of southern Dutch on? Is it possible that he gave a distorted view of the sociolinguistic situation around 1823? This question may be impossible to answer, but we will nevertheless offer some suggestions.

148

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

First, we need to consider the limitations of the corpus used here. Although it only contains texts from the legal domain, Cannaert was active precisely in these circles. What is more, his appeals in the introduction are directly addressed to one of his imagined or unnamed colleagues, and his booklet even contains a passage on legal jargon. Second, Cannaert is clearly eager to promote his own book, and by portraying southern Dutch as old-fashioned, dialectal and generally different from northern Dutch, he increases the market value of his publication. More importantly, however, we also need to consider what we previously called the ‘myth of southern language decay’ as a possible explanation for the observed discrepancy between Cannaert’s metalinguistic observations and actual language use (Van der Horst, 2004; Rutten & Vosters, 2011). If we were to limit ourselves to the prescriptivist and metalinguistic discourse from the 18th- and 19th-century southern Netherlands, we would get the impression that the Dutch language, at the start of the Dutchification period during the UKN, was in a state of complete decay. Many commentators emphasise that anyone of any social significance used French as the language of prestige, leaving Dutch to wither away into a collection of local dialects without any overarching supraregional standard. Nonetheless, complaints about the state of the vernacular are a common phenomenon all across Early and Late Modern Europe: very similar lamentations about language decay can be heard in the north as well, just as in various other linguistic traditions, often precisely serving as a justification for an author’s own endeavours in his or her mother tongue.7 The myth of southern language decay, however, brings together some elements characterising the linguistic situation of the southern Netherlands. Language decay is usually related explicitly to the dominant position of French in the preceding decades, and dialectal and orthographical chaos in the southern provinces is described in sharp contrast to presumably complete linguistic uniformity in the north.8 There is thus on the one hand some discrepancy between the metalinguistic discourse in prescriptivist publications like Cannaert (1823) and actual language use in the southern Netherlands on the other. While the dominant discourse suggests a language variety in chaos, regressing towards local and dialectal forms, we do not see many dialectal characteristics in written Dutch from the south. Even for 1823, at the very start of the Dutchification policy which was to characterise the UKN, the Siegenbeekian variants were nearly always the dominant forms for most of the variables we investigated. Our corpus does not show any signs of transliterated dialect. The political reunion during the UKN and William I’s Dutchification policy again brought together southern and northern writing practices. In southern metalinguistic discourse, this resulted in a schematic opposition of typically southern and northern forms, wrongly suggesting

Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815−1830)

149

that language users were normatively caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Over time, the southern forms gradually gave way to the northern prescriptions. Comparing such ideologically motivated discourse to language use, we argued that the differences between northern and southern Dutch were much smaller than they are claimed to be in prescriptive works like Cannaert (1823). We explained this discrepancy with reference to the myth of southern language decay. Our analysis shows that combined research into language use, norm traditions and language ideologies can help explain and contextualise linguistic prescriptivism.

Notes (1)

See de Keverberg de Kessel (1834: 290−293), whose data are based on census data for the different provinces, and thus represent mere rough estimates (cf. de Jonghe, 1967: 24). (2) This paper is a revised version of an earlier study published in Dutch (Vosters & Rutten, 2011). All translations are our own. (3) According to Van Duyse (1849); cf. Lissens (2000: 140−141) and references therein. (4) A poem, called ‘Ode op de herstelling der nederduytsche Tael’, appeared in the Almanak van Nut en Vermaak in 1815, and was soon praised and copied in Le Spectateur Belge (De Foere, 1815, II: 73–75). (5) For some features, we had to limit our searches to the most frequent and/or etymologically least controversial lexical items, or the most frequent linguistic contexts in which the phenomena under discussion occurred. See Vosters and Rutten (2011) for full details on the search expressions used. For the analysis of the m. nom. sg. -n/ø- forms, a smaller subsection of the corpus was used (61,912 words) (see Rutten & Vosters, 2011). (6) Cannaert does mention the variation between and in the south, claiming to be the exclusive form in the north. For the sake of clarity, however, we categorised as the southern form, as this ending, according to Cannaert, would exclusively occur in the south. (7) Cf. for instance, Rutten (2006: 122−129) for northern Dutch and Watts (2000) for English. (8) This submyth of northern uniformity is debunked and dealt with more extensively in Vosters et al. (2010).

References Primary sources

Barafin, P.P.J. (1815) Sur la langue nationale. Brussels: A. Stapleaux. Bruggen, J.A. ter ([1817] 1818) Nederduytsche Spraek-konst ten Gebruyke der Schoólen (2nd edn). Antwerp: J.S. Schoesetters. Cannaert, J.B. (1823) Iets over de Hollandsche Tael, noch Voor, noch Tegen, Latende Elk Dienaengaende Vry en Verlet als naer Goedvinden, in Eenige Familiaire Brieven. Eerste Stukske. Ghent: A.B. Stéven. Colenbrander, H.T. (1909) Ontstaan der Grondwet, 1814−1815. Bronnenverzameling. Deel 2, 1815. See (last accessed 8 June 2016). Colenbrander, H.T. (1915) Gedenkstukken der Algemeene Geschiedenis van Nederland van 1795 tot 1840. The Hague: Nijhoff.

150

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Defrenne, J. (1829) Quelques idées sur l’usage obligé de la langue dite nationale au Royaume des Pays-Bas. Brussels: Chez tous les marchands de nouveautés. Foere, L. De (1815–1823) Le Spectateur belge. Ouvrage historique, littéraire, critique et moral. Bruges: Wed. De Moor en Zoon. Keverberg de Kessel, C.L.G.J. de (1834) Du Royaume des Pays-Bas, sous le rapport de son origine, de son développement et de sa crise actuelle. Part 2. The Hague: Th. Lejeune. Plasschaert, J.B.J.G. (1817) Esquisse historique sur les langues, considérées dans leurs rapports avec la civilisation et la liberté des peuples. Brussels: P.J. De Mat. Siegenbeek, M. (1804) Verhandeling over de Nederduitsche Spelling, ter Bevordering van Eenparigheid in Dezelve. Amsterdam: Allart. Simpel, D. De (1827) Taalkundige Tweespraak. Ypres: F.L. Smaelen. Weiland, P. (1805) Nederduitsche Spraakkunst. Amsterdam: Allart. Willems, J.F. (1824) Over de Hollandsche en Vlaemsche Schryfwyzen van het Nederduitsch. Antwerp: Wed. J.S. Schoesetters.

Secondary sources

Blauwkuip, F. (1920) De Taalbesluiten van Koning Willem I. Amsterdam: De Bussy. Duyse, P. Van (1849) Levensberigt van Josef Bernard Cannaert. Handelingen der Jaarlijksche Algemeene Vergadering der Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde, 110−113. Errington, J.J. (1985) On the nature of the sociolinguistic sign. Describing the Javanese speech levels. In E. Mertz and R.J. Parmentier (eds) Semiotic Mediation. Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives (pp. 287−310). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Goethem, H. Van (1990) De Taaltoestanden in het Vlaams-Belgisch Gerecht. 1795−1935. Brussels: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België. Hickey, R. (2000) Salience, stigma and standard. In L. Wright (ed.) The Development of Standard English, 1300−1800 (pp. 57–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horst, J.M. van der (2004) Schreef J.B.C. Verlooy echt zo gebrekkig? Het 19de/20steeeuwse beeld van de 18de eeuw getoetst. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 114 (1), 71–82. Jaffe, A. (2000) Non-standard orthography and non-standard speech. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (4), 497–513. Janssens, G. and Steyaert, K. (2008) Het Onderwijs van het Nederlands in de Waalse Provincies en Luxemburg onder Koning Willem I (1814−1830). Niets Meer dan een Boon in een Brouwketel? Brussels: VUB-Press. Jonghe, A. de (1967) De Taalpolitiek van Koning Willem I in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden (1824−1830). Sint-Andries-bij-Brugge: Darthet. Lissens, R.F. (2000) Een Lectuur van ‘Le Spectateur Belge’ (1815−1823) van Leo de Foere. Traditionalisme in actie. Ghent: KANTL. Rutten, G. (2006) De Archimedische Punten van de Taalbeschouwing. David van Hoogstraten (1658−1724) en de Vroegmoderne Taalcultuur. Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Nodus Publikationen. Rutten, G. (2009) Grammar to the people. The Dutch language and the public sphere in the 18th century. With special reference to Kornelis van der Palm. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 19, 55–86. Rutten, G., in cooperation with Vosters R. (2011) Een Nieuwe Nederduitse Spraakkunst. Taalnormen en Schrijfpraktijken in de Zuidelijke Nederlanden in de Achttiende Eeuw. Brussels: VUB-Press. Rutten, G. (2012) ‘Lowthian’ linguistics across the North Sea. Historiographia Linguistica 39, 43–60. Rutten, G. and Vosters, R. (2010a) Spellingsnormen in het Zuiden. Standaardisatie van het geschreven Nederlands in de achttiende en negentiende eeuw. In M. van der Wal

Competing Language Norms in the Southern Low Countries (1815−1830)

151

and E. Francken (eds) Standaardtalen in Beweging (pp. 27–48). Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Nodus. Rutten, G. and Vosters, R. (2010b) Chaos and standards. Orthography in the Southern Netherlands (1720–1830). Multilingua 29, 417–438. Rutten, G. and Vosters, R. (2011) As many norms as there were scribes? Language history, norms and usage in the Southern Netherlands in the nineteenth century. In N. Langer, S. Davies and W. Vandenbussche (eds) Language and History, Linguistics and Historiography. Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp. 229−254). Oxford/Bern: Peter Lang. Smedt, M. de (2010) Jan Frans Willems (1793−1846) in het spanningsveld van talen en vaderlanden. In N. Bemong, M. Kemperink, M. Mathijsen and T. Sintobin (eds) Naties in een Spanningsveld. Tegenstrijdige Bewegingen in de Identiteitsvorming in Negentiende-Eeuws Vlaanderen en Nederland (pp. 65–78). Hilversum: Verloren. Vandenbussche, W. (2001) Nederlands als prestigetaal voor de Brugse upper class in de 19de eeuw? Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 111, 323−340. Vanhecke, E. (2007) Stedelijke Kanselarijtaal in Vlaanderen in de Negentiende Eeuw. Unpublished PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Vosters, R. (2011) Taalgebruik, Taalnormen en Taalbeschouwing in Vlaanderen tijdens het Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Een Historisch-Sociolinguïstische Verkenning van Vroeg-Negentiende-Eeuws Zuidelijk Nederlands. Unpublished PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Vosters, R. (2013) Dutch, Flemish or Hollandic? Social and ideological aspects of linguistic convergence and divergence during the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815−1830). In E. Barát, P. Studer and J. Nekvapil (eds) Ideological Conceptualisations of Language. Discourses of Linguistic Diversity (pp. 35–54). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Vosters, R., Rutten, G. and Wal, M. van der (2010) Mythes op de pijnbank. Naar een herwaardering van de taalsituatie in de Nederlanden in de achttiende en negentiende eeuw. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 120, 93−112. Vosters, R. and Rutten, G. (2011) “Iets over de Hollandsche Tael, Noch Voor, Noch Tegen?” In R. Vosters and J. Weijermars (eds) Taal, Natievorming en Cultuurbeleid onder Willem I (pp. 201−225). Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten. Vosters, R., Rutten, G., Wal, M. van der and Vandenbussche, W. (2012) Spelling and identity in the Southern Netherlands (1750−1830). In A. Jaffe, J. Androutsopoulos, M. Sebba and S. Johnson (eds) Orthography as Social Action. Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (pp. 135−160). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, R.J. (2000) Mythical strands in the ideology of prescriptivism. In L. Wright (ed.) The Development of Standard English, 1300−1800 (pp. 29–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10 The Syntax of Others: ‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic1 Heimir van der Feest Viðarsson

Introduction Language ideologies have figured prominently as a field of inquiry in (socio)linguistic research, providing a bridge between disciplines such as anthropology, linguistics and pragmatics (see e.g. Schieffelin & Doucet, 1998; Deumert, 2003a, 2003b; Vandenbussche, 2007; Woolard, 2008; Milroy & Milroy, [1985] 2012). Much in this spirit, Irvine and Gal (1995, 2000) propose a single conceptual framework for investigating how linguistic boundaries are constructed socially by means of cultural processes which establish links between linguistic and social units. Their framework provides a means of accounting for the way in which a salient opposition at a social level is activated recursively by its projection onto an inherently non-salient aspect of language, in the present context onto word order. In this chapter, I will mainly be concerned with a particular syntactic variable in 19th- and early 20th-century Icelandic as a part of a pilot study on the position of the finite verb in embedded clauses relative to adverbial phrases and negation, focusing here on the latter. Only subject-initial embedded clauses will be considered (see e.g. Viðarsson [2014: 9−10] for motivation). The two variants found, which will be referred to as V2 and V3, respectively, are exemplified in (1) and (2) with data from an electronic corpus of 19th-century newspapers obtained from Tímarit.is (see section ‘Language use viewed from “above”’, Table 10.2): (1) má ganga ad því sem vísu ad í menntun can go at it in education

as

sú þjód

er ekki komin langt á leid

sure that that nation is

152

not come far

on route

‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic

153

‘It is certain that that nation has not come far on route to education […]’ (1846−47, REYKPOST) (2) Þad gegnir allri furdu þennan sannleika it serves all this truth

ad

Islendingar

wonder that Icelanders

ekki skuli

kannast vid

not

recognise

shall

‘It is bizarre that Icelanders do not recognise this truth’ (1846−47, REYKPOST)

Building on my own earlier work, I will study V2/V3 both from a use- and discourse-oriented perspective (cf. Deumert, 2003b: 23−25). The former involves the study of primary texts ‘reflect[ing] the linguistic practices of a community’ (Deumert, 2003b: 23), whereas the latter concerns metalinguistic commentary and language political provisions. Different types of textual data will be used, varying greatly in degrees of normativity. The main objective is to contrast the use of V2/V3 in 19th and early 20th-century private letters with largely contemporaneous newspapers. The latter are expected to follow linguistic norms more closely than the former, corresponding to the distinction between language use viewed from ‘above’ and ‘below’, respectively (cf. Elspaß, 2012). In addition, the language use of student essays from the junior college in Reykjavik or the ‘Learned School’ (1846−1904, henceforth Lærði skólinn), published in part by Ólafsson (2004), will be used in an effort to unravel bits from the ‘black box’ of historical pedagogy (Vandenbussche, 2007: 29). This material will be complemented with a separate study of the teachers’ linguistic corrections, which have not been published, in addition to other metalinguistic remarks, bridging the divide between discourse and use (Deumert, 2003b: 23). The origin of the V3 pattern is beyond the scope of this chapter (on which, see e.g. Sundquist, 2003; Håkansson, 2011; Heycock & Wallenberg, 2013). Instead, I wish to demonstrate that this linguistic variable participates in and thus provides evidence for the semiotic processes postulated by Irvine and Gal (1995, 2000) and subsequent work, revealing the ideological foundations of language description with regard to V2/V3. It will be argued that by constructing a linguistic contrast on the basis of a salient social opposition between ‘native’ versus ‘non-native’, usually Danish, variation which existed within the community of speakers was erased. Not only was V3 rejected as a part of the emerging standard but it was also ignored as a part of native speakers’ grammars, glossing over the fact that V3 is found in a variety of genres and across different speakers.

Ideological Foundations of Language Standardisation In their seminal work on language ideologies, Irvine and Gal (1995) distinguish three semiotic processes: iconicity, recursiveness and erasure, defined below, which are argued to operate in a wide range of ethnographic

154

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

and historical settings. Using this framework, Irvine and Gal (1995, 2000) offer an analysis of a variety of cases concerning motivation of language change, linguistic description in grammars and dictionaries, i.e. codification in Haugen’s classic model (see e.g. Haugen, 1987: 59–61), and political discussion which manifest a linguistic ideology of differentiation. Iconicity is the process by which a linguistic feature, variety or practice is transformed to form an index to a social group as if portraying ‘a social group’s inherent nature or essence’ (Irvine & Gal, 1995: 973). Recursiveness refers to how an opposition which is salient at some level gets projected onto another level. A co-constitutive opposition, say native versus nonnative, or some imagined ‘other’ (Irvine & Gal, 1995: 975), can project onto some other social (including linguistic) fact and this opposition may be nested in other contexts recursively (see Gal, 2005: 26−27). Iconicity and recursiveness may both give rise to erasure by which ideology simplifies linguistic practice, ‘for example, a social group, or a language, may be imagined as homogeneous, its internal variation disregarded’ (Irvine & Gal, 1995: 974). Facts inconsistent with the ideology, when noticed, may be ignored, explained away or even transformed, e.g. by attempting to eliminate them (Irvine & Gal, 1995: 974–975). Unlike much research in sociolinguistics, the focus is not on the social embedding of language but on how ideologies construct linguistic contrasts and differentiation of potential universal applicability. As such, the locus of these ideologies comprises not only individual speakers but also observers and other scholars, e.g. in their language descriptions and models. This framework is of immediate relevance to language standardisation whereby the codification of norms erases inter- and intra-speaker variability. The general view on the standardisation of Icelandic implies extensive tampering with the language even at abstract levels (see e.g. Kusters, 2003: 183−185, with references). Thomason (2001: 9), for instance, writes that ‘the creators of Standard Icelandic deliberately archaized the language’s structure, making it look older so as to bring it closer to the language of the Eddas’. A similarly bold statement is found in Haugen (1987: 74), who claims that Icelandic was ‘recodified from the half-Danicised language of the 1584 Bible by reference to the classic models from Old Icelandic’. Various cases have been mentioned at the level of declensional paradigms of certain nouns and adjectives, derivational morphology, vowel distinctions and even word order (see Árnason, 2003; Ottósson, 1990; Sigtryggsson, 2003).2 However, a recent study indicates that an often cited example of the revival of an Old Norse morphological declension actually involved a choice among existing variants rather than extinct patterns and also that the elimination of the non-standard forms may not have been as successful as generally implied (Heimisdóttir, 2008). Traditionally, the proposed explanation of why the recodified Icelandic norms could be implemented so easily was very simple: it was based to a

‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic

155

large extent on the spoken language of the general public which allegedly had remained more or less ‘intact’ since medieval times, unlike that of the educated elite (cf. Smári, 1920: 14). Such claims are ideologically laden and interesting in that they are still often repeated, blatantly ignoring the myriad of (especially) syntactic and phonological changes. In the wake of 19th-century nationalistic movements (see Leerssen, 1999; Hálfdanarson, 2005), it was as much a political claim as a linguistic one that e.g. rural varieties of Icelandic were ‘pure’, basically still a variety of Old Norse that had remained exceptionally stable. It is also here that we find most clearly the ideology of differentiation, which takes as a given that linguistic traits associated with supposedly ‘impure’ or ‘foreign’ aspects form a coherent, separate class of some ‘them/other’ distinct from ‘us/self’ (see also Schieffelin & Doucet, 1998: 268). As discussed by Deumert (2003a: 66−67) in a wider European context, deliberate linguistic changes generally involved in language standardisation were brought about around 1800 by a conspiracy of factors. These included the interaction of language societies and academies, improved school systems and better access to various sorts of media, the norms of which were adopted in part as the casual code of a growing number of speakers. In this context, Vandenbussche (2007: 29) emphasises ‘the “black box” of historical pedagogy’ as ‘the crucial points for future advances in the study of the spread of literacy and standardized writing behaviour’. The literature suggests that the V3 pattern (cf. (2) above) arose in the 1600s due to a tendency of writers to imitate or calque the word orders of foreign languages such as Latin, German and Danish (cf. Smári, 1920: 258, 261). This practice supposedly continued into the 19th century when Icelandic was recodified, in Haugen’s (1987) terms, although many speakers of present-day Icelandic still accept and use the V3 order (cf. Angantýsson, 2011). A similar view is found in Heycock and Wallenberg (2013). On the basis of a corpus study, these linguists show that V3 is mostly confined to the period 1600–1850, suggesting that the word order was a contrived trait of the written language (a calque) which never affected the spoken language. Because previous scholars have focused on narrative texts, Heycock and Wallenberg (2013) being no exception, it is important to study the variable in a wider variety of sources. However, let us first consider the social significance of the variable from a discourseoriented perspective.

A Discourse-Oriented Study of the Linguistic Variable A common source of complaint in 19th-century metalinguistic discourse concerned word orders that were considered to be absent in Old Norse. These were claimed to be ‘foreign’ or even ‘un-Icelandic’ (e.g. Gíslason, 1844; Þorkelsson, 1870; Friðriksson, 1871). A well-known variable

156

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

concerned the late placement of the finite verb in embedded clauses, appearing in two guises: either the verb did not immediately follow the subject (negation or adverb coming in between) or it occurred clausefinally, as exemplified in (3) and (4), the latter of which is taken from the corpus of 19th-century newspapers reported on in the following section. (3)

allt

það,

er

vér

ekki

áttum von

all

that

which

we

not

had

á

(V3)

expectance on

‘Everything that we did not expect’ (cited in Gíslason, 1844: 85) (4)

[…] ad

þad

that it

ei

skéd

géti

med

fullri

réttsýni

not

happen can

with

full

justice

(V-final)

‘[…] that it cannot happen with full justice’ (1839, BÚNSUÐ)

In Modern Icelandic, V-final order is no longer found and was already rare in the 19th century. It has been suggested that V3 involving negation is not found in 20th-century Icelandic or it is felt to be a Danicism (see Viðarsson, 2014: 7), but V3 has also been reported to be on the rise (see Angantýsson [2011] for extensive discussion, arguing that it constitutes focus). A social stigma was first explicitly attached to V3 in the 1840s by Konráð Gíslason (1808–1891), an Icelandic linguist, purist and spelling reformer based in Copenhagen. He wrote or co-authored a series of book reviews in Fjölnir, a journal published between 1835 and 1847, in which the language of recently published books was subjected to close scrutiny and harshly criticised. In one of his reviews, Gíslason (1844: 85) remarked that the (V3) configuration shown in (3) is Danish-like and that the finite verb should precede the negation (V2). Smári (1920: 258) similarly described V3 as a ‘(foreign) practice’ which ‘must be avoided’. This view continued into late modernity as in Böðvarsson’s (1992: 263) usage guide describing it as a ‘bad habit’ (see also Angantýsson, 2011: 62, fn. 41). On the basis of such evidence, it is tempting to attribute the erasure of V3 from Standard Icelandic directly to the standardisation process. Potential evidence in favour of such a hypothesis comes from the timing of a diachronic change in the relative frequency of V3 as opposed to V2. As demonstrated by Heycock and Wallenberg’s study (2013), mentioned above, the non-standard order where the finite verb follows the negation and adverbs is basically unattested after 1850. An earlier, unpublished study of late 20th-century newspapers (cited in Viðarsson, 2014: 7) had already shown the standard order to be universal, unsurprising given the fact that such material is edited. However, despite the fact that the Fjölnir book reviews are argued to have been extremely influential (see Ottósson, 1990: 72), it is not

‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic

157

immediately obvious that the above remark raised general awareness of the linguistic variable in question, at least until the end of the 19th century. For one, instances of V3 are found in high-profile grammars such as Íslenzk málmyndalýsíng (Friðriksson, 1861: vi, viii) on morphology but also Íslenzk málsgreinafræði (Jónsson, 1893: 19) on syntax, although I have not studied how frequently the order occurs. The author of the former work, Halldór Kr. Friðriksson (1819–1902), taught Icelandic from 1848– 1895 at Lærði skólinn, and is said to have been ‘more influential than most’ concerning Icelandic purism during the latter half of the 19th century, much in the spirit of Gíslason (cf. Ottósson, 1990: 95–96). The role of Lærði skólinn is also emphasised by Kusters (2003: 184): ‘Since there was only one secondary school, the language missionaries succeeded in halting and reversing the changes in Icelandic’. In partial compliance with recovering the ‘black box’ of historical pedagogy (Vandenbussche, 2007), it is possible to get more than a glimpse of the teaching practices at the time. For instance, all student exams from the period when Lærði skólinn operated under that name (1846–1904) happen to be preserved at the National Archives of Iceland (see Ólafsson, 2004). This enormous amount of material also contains corrections by teachers of not only spelling and punctuation but also grammar, offering new insights into the emergence of the national standard language. I have carried out a preliminary survey of student essays from 1847–1848, 1852, 1860–1861, 1875, 1882 and 1890. My results suggest that V3 was seldom corrected, although quite amply attested in the students’ essays. Sporadic corrections of V3 are found at least as early as 1860–1861, exemplified in Figures 10.1 and 10.2, and continue in later periods (for more examples, see Viðarsson, 2014: 18–19). The unsystematic treatment of V3 as a nonstandard feature in the material studied so far suggests that eliminating V3

Figure 10.1 V3 in a student’s essay underlined by examiner (1860, fourth grade)

Figure 10.2 V3 underlined in a student’s essay (1861, third grade). Corrections traceable to two different examiners (see Figure 10.3)

158

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Figure 10.3 Essay bundle sleeve listing examiners, including the reviewers’ checkmarks in distinct ink (1861, third grade)

may not have been considered a top priority. However, these corrections need to be studied further. Treating V3 as a linguistic error continues in early 20th century schoolbooks. While most grammars let it suffice to declare that adverbs and the negation follow the finite verb, erasing the variation by ignoring V3, others explicitly reject V3 as an option. A case in point is Jónasson’s (1909) Icelandic grammar for beginners, published in three revised editions from 1909 to 1920. In this grammar intended for Icelandic pupils, a statement about the proper word order of Icelandic is immediately followed by example clauses featuring the V3 order, which the student is then asked to correct (Jónasson, 1909: 59). Later revisions of the grammar in 1910 and 1920 are identical in this regard. Metalinguistic evidence for the stigmatisation of V3 in circles outside the educational system is provided by a newspaper article written by Gunnarsson (1878). In reaction to a harsh book review regarding supposedly Danish features in an Icelandic publication, Gunnarsson criticised the commentator’s own language use. Most of Gunnarsson’s (1878: 10) remarks involve V3 constructions, described iconically as having ‘some bitter taste of Danish’ (eitthvert danskt óbragð). The dismissal of V3 is justified on the basis of two claims. First, that V3 is rarely found in daily speech and second, that V3 is unattested in Old Norse. Interesting, too, from the perspective of the processes of iconicity and erasure, Gunnarsson (1878: 10) mentions an Old Norse attestation known to him. However, it is immediately disregarded as a scribal error as this obviously contradicted the prevailing language ideology, both in terms of an invariant and pure Old Norse and the recursive projection of Danish characteristics onto V3. Heycock and Wallenberg’s (2013) corpus study indicates that the finite verb, in fact, occasionally follows negation and adverbs in Old Norse, contrary to the received wisdom that the actuation of this variant only came about later through language contact (see also Håkansson [2011] on Old Swedish).

‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic

159

A Use-oriented Study of the Linguistic Variable Language use viewed from ‘above’ In this subsection, I will first report on a pilot corpus study of a selection of 19th-century newspapers and periodicals obtained from Tímarit.is (see also Viðarsson, 2014), an electronic corpus provided by the National and University Library of Iceland. For comparison, the distribution of the variable in a typical (highly normative) source of language use viewed from ‘above’ in the terminology of Elspaß (2012), viz. the Bible (1866), will be shown. Finally, these data will be supplemented by a study of the variable in student essays, mentioned in the preceding section. Since newspapers and periodicals involve public texts, they are likely to reflect largely written norms, so that changes in the prescribed norms will arguably also become visible over time. The subcorpus used here consists of approximately 450,000 words, divided into three different time slices: 1800–1850, 1875 and 1900. Although somewhat different in style to narrative texts, this material is a priori expected to confirm the findings of Heycock and Wallenberg (2013). Indeed, V3 is similarly found to be frequent during the period 1800–1850, while this word order greatly diminished in 1875 and 1900 in favour of V2. This is shown in Table 10.1. The difference between usage before and after 1850 is statistically significant but there is no such difference between 1875 and 1900 (see Viðarsson, 2014: 11). If the change from the period before and after 1850 was somehow due to the stigmatisation of V3 and the selection of V2 as the new standard, we might have expected the stigmatised order to disappear almost completely. Yet, V3 is still found in 1875 (14.8%) and 1900 (10.5%). Examples are shown in (5) and (6) (abbreviations refer to Table 10.2): (5) a. Nú vildi hann hefna þess, ad sonur hans ecki fjeck Keisaratignina (V3) Now wanted he avenge it that son his not got emperor-rankDEF ‘Now he wanted to avenge that his son was not promoted to emperor’ (1818, MARGGAM) b. Nokkrar lagt Several put

óljósar trúnað unclear trust

fregnir hafa og borizt oss, er vér á news have too arrived us which we on

eigi

getum

not

can

‘We also received some unclear news that we cannot rely on’ (1875, NORÐ)

160

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

c. Var þá rækist Was then clash

Vouguard á Vouguard on

þegar undið við til þess að seglskipið ekki hann directly turned around so that sail-shipDEF not it

‘Then Vouguard was turned around immediately so that the sailing ship would not collide with it’ (1875, ÍSL) (6) a. […]

og sjá and see

til to

ad that

Kall Kall

fái get

ecki not

sinn vilja (V2) his will

‘[…] and see to it that Kall does not get his will (1835, SUNNPOST) b. […] og er í and is in

því ýmislegt sem vjer it various which we

getum ekki can not

fallist á accept on

‘[…] and there are various things in it, which we cannot agree with (1846–47, Reyk) c. má

stinga þar

ecki can stab not

í,

þó

ecki

there in though not

djúpt, svo

naglrótin

skadist

deep

nail-rootDEF

be-damaged

so

‘it can be punctured, though not deep, so that the nail root is unharmed (1835, SUNNPOST)

Based on the distribution shown in Table 10.1, it is at least conceivable that once V3 was stigmatised, speakers (and/or editors) tried to avoid it, though not always successfully so, or some indeed succeeded while others failed. Interestingly, the average proportion of V3 compared to V2 in 1875 and 1900 does not differ significantly from that found in the private letters of those with little or no formal education (see section ‘Language use viewed from “below”’). However, there are clear differences between individual newspapers in each period, as can be seen in Table 10.2. In the six newspapers from the earliest period, frequencies ranged between 32.5% and 56% in four of them, being as high as 77.8% in one and as low as 15.2% in another. In the two subsequent periods, we find newspapers with a low occurrence rate of the V3 order, in 1900 even zero or near-zero in a number of them. Clearly, more research is needed, but the overall distribution may Table 10.1 Variation between V2 and V3 in 19th-century newspapers and periodicals Period

V2

V3

%V3

Before 1850 1875 1900

225 161 350

178 28 41

44.2% 14.8% 10.5%

‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic

161

Table 10.2 V3 within individual newspapers or periodicals 1800–1850 Minnisverð tíðindi Reykjavíkurpósturinn Búnaðarrit suðuramtsins 1875 Íslendingur Þjóðólfur Norðanfari 1900 Reykvíkingur Reykjavík Austri Stefnir Þjóðviljinn Framsókn

77.8% (21/27) 56% (56/100) 46.3% (31/67)

Ármann á Alþingi Sunnanpósturinn Margvíslegt gaman og alvara

40.7% (50/123) 32.5% (13/40) 15.2% (7/46)

32.5% (13/40) 23.8% (5/21) 10.9% (5/46)

Norðlingur Ísafold

6.3% (3/48) 5.9% (2/34)

35% (7/20) 25% (1/4) 23.9% (11/46) 22.7% (10/44) 9.3% (4/43) 8.8% (3/34)

Fjallkonan Ísafold Þjóðólfur Kvennablaðið Bjarki

4.8% (2/42) 3.2% (2/63) 1.9% (1/53) 0% (0/20) 0% (0/22)

Table 10.3 Variation between V2 and V3 in the Icelandic Bible (1866) Period

V2

V3

%V3

Old Testament New Testament

540 367

211 126

28.1% 25.6%

be interpreted as potential evidence against the hypothesis that V3 was consciously avoided as early as 1850–1875. A further piece of evidence which supports this conclusion is the relatively high frequency of V3 in the (revised) 1866 edition of the Bible, as shown in Table 10.3. The use of V3 is quite evenly distributed across different books of the Bible, visible also in the near identical frequency of its use in the Old and New Testaments in Table 10.3. This indicates variation which is also quite stable across authors, since different authors/ translators were responsible for different books of the Bible. To complete this survey of V2/V3 as viewed ‘from above’, let us now take a brief look at 19th and early 20th-century student essays using the corpus published in Ólafsson (2004). The material published contains a selection of Icelandic essays written by students at Lærði skólinn covering the period 1852−1904, including a student essay from 1906, made available to the project in electronic form. While only a fraction of all the material preserved, this corpus of approximately 83,000 words offers a novel way of observing the implementation of standardisation through the students’ own language use. An overview of the use of the two variants is shown in Table 10.4.

162

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Table 10.4 Variation between V2 and V3 in Lærði skólinn student essays (1852−1906) Period

V2

V3

%V3

1852−1865 1865−1875 1875−1885 1885−1895 1895−1906

25 21 60 31 83

6 15 20 8 7

19% 42% 25% 21% 8%

The amount of text is not evenly distributed over each period. The lower rate of occurrence of V3 in the first period as opposed to the second is surprising, but this may be due to the fact that the numbers are low. Still, other periods follow a similar cline which we observed above in the newspaper corpus. Because Ólafsson (2004) confined himself to the students’ own texts, leaving out all teachers’ corrections present in the material, we cannot know at this point whether V3 was systematically corrected in this material. However, the gradual decline of V3 in the student essays might be taken as evidence of V3 being actively counteracted as a part of the implementation of the national standard language, especially towards the end of the century. To sum up, we find usage-based evidence for V3 being treated as a nonstandard feature towards the end of the 19th century. What is perhaps most striking about this evidence is that V3 is still amply attested decades after it became associated with Danish. This also suggests that Gíslason’s linguistic norms, although widely considered to have been influential in the formation of the emerging national standard, were not slavishly adopted and implemented in the Lærði skólinn from the beginning. Finally, let us now turn to the question whether V3 was a superficial trait of the written language by looking at its use in colloquial letter writing, arguably the closest we can get to the spoken register at the time.

Language use viewed from ‘below’ The private letter corpus currently includes 1,639 letters from the 19th and early 20th centuries, roughly 900,000 words, collected and transcribed in XML form by Bernharðsson and Jónsson (2014) and colleagues. Most of the letters are from the latter half of the 19th century, written by men and women from various parts of Iceland with little or no formal education and addressed to friends and relatives. The corpus also contains West-Icelandic letters from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, by Icelanders who had emigrated to North America. As emphasised by Elspaß (2012), such texts tend to contain language that reflects closeness rather than distance, offering an unprecedented view of language variation from ‘below’.

‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic

163

Table 10.5 Variation between V2 and V3 in 19th- and early 20th-century private letters Period Before 1850 1850–1875 1875–1900 After 1900 Unknown

V2

V3

%V3

197 1115 965 458 50

18 130 125 29 3

8.4% 10.4% 11.5% 6.0% 5.7%

As shown in Table 10.5, the supposedly foreign V3 word order is more than marginally attested even in the private letters. Its rate of occurrence throughout the period studied is certainly lower than in newspapers in the period before 1850 (cf. Table 10.2), but it is significant that it should occur at all. The few attestations of the variable before 1850 are due to the fact that, at present, relatively few letters in the corpus are from that period. Examples are shown in (7) and (8): (7) a. enn mjer ferða lagi but me journey

lítst nú maður inn (V3) seems now manDEF

ekki

muni vera

kapp samur

í

not

will

ardent

in

be

‘But I think the man will not be ardent on a trip’ (1864, m) b. […] svo so

að that

jeg I

ekki safnaði því er hann ekki not collected that which he not

vildi wanted

‘[…] so that I would not collect that which he did not want’ (1866, m) c. Enda þó í Although in

mamma þín ekki sje lakar neitt heldur en að hún var sumar mother your not is worse any rather than that she was summer

‘Even though your mother is not any worse than she was this summer’ (1881, m) (8) a. en but

annars álýt jeg otherwise think I

þessháttar that-sort

hafi has

ekki not

þýðingu (V2) meaning

‘But otherwise, I think that sort of thing is of no use’ (1894, m) b. nú ekki now not

hendi eg þér med piltunum hérna öll kverin sem eg vil eiga throw I you with boysDEF here all booklets which I will own

‘Now I will send with the boys here all the booklets that I do not wish to own’ (1869, f)

164

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

c. Þjer You

skuluð eigi should not

láta yður miklast þó stofan sje eigi góð let you be-much though parlour is not good

‘You should not be worried although the living room is not good’ (1877, f)

The question arises whether V3 is evenly distributed among speakers or if most speakers are, indeed, in possession of the ‘pure’ V2 grammar. The latter situation would imply that the roughly 10% of V3 found in Table 10.5 were instantiated by an isolated group of other speakers, to be further identified. This turns out to be a difficult question to answer. Since not all scribes wrote equally many letters that included the variable, they are not easily compared. As is often the case with low-frequency syntactic variables, a large amount of text is required for the variable to show up at all in any given text. In an attempt to address this issue, I will analyse the variable as used by individual speakers. Altogether 3082 instances of V2 and V3 were found in the letters of 251 scribes, excluding unidentified scribes. With merely 48 scribes, the variable was attested 10 times or more often, only 12 of whom (25%) used V2 categorically. This rather low number of V2 scribes would be hard to explain if V3 was not used regularly by the general public. A further complication, however, is that although the scribes were unlettered, some were more highly placed than others, e.g. the priest’s or the sheriff’s wife. Quite possibly, their language resembled that of more educated individuals due to shared backgrounds and social networks, thus potentially giving rise to an artificially high proportion of V3. Still, the social status of the scribes in this subset who produced V3 over a third of the time, five speakers in all, appears rather diverse (see Table 10.6). As shown in Table 10.6, the identity of one scribe is uncertain. Although a thorough analysis of social and linguistic variables is still pending, it should be clear at this stage that the use of V3 was not confined to educated speakers. Moreover, speakers do not typically appear to generate either order categorically, which indicates that V3 must have occurred regularly in daily speech, albeit to a varying degree. Table 10.6 Scribes with 10 or more instances of the variable (at least ca. 33% V3) Scribe S. Siggeirsdóttir A. Fjeldsted F. Olgeirsson S. Salómonsen L. Jónasson

Linguistic variable

%V3

Occupation

Gender

Life dates

125 22 27

54.4% 50.0% 48.1%

Female Male Male

1846–1904 1839–1917 1838–1885

28 13

42.9% 38.5%

Priest’s wife Farmer Farmer, saddler ? Carpenter

Female Male

? 1840–1896

‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic

165

Concluding Remarks The standardisation of Icelandic, as observed on the basis of the V2/V3 variable, clearly attests to the construction of a linguistic contrast. As the discussion above shows, the use of V3, although claimed to be foreign, is not confined to a particular set of speakers likely to fit that profile. However, we do find that, on average, V3 is used more frequently in newspaper texts than in private letters until V3 becomes iconic, indexing the value ‘Danish’. The attempted elimination of the non-standard variant no doubt influenced its use in standardised texts, especially towards the end of the century when it seems to have gained more widespread awareness. However, what was routinely ignored within this ideology, ‘erased’ in the terminology of Irvine and Gal (1995, 2000), was an inconvenient but important fact about its distribution. Some native speakers appear to have had both variants even in the most colloquial registers, represented by the private letters, while others used V3 in a more restricted way, perhaps utilising it solely as a focus marker as has been argued for present-day Icelandic (Angantýsson, 2011). All these points merit further study. Particularly pressing is the interaction between syntactic and social variables, not addressed here, and a closer study of stylistic variation, as well as approaching traditional standardisation histories critically from both a use-oriented and discourseoriented perspective. As Leonard and Árnason (2011: 94) put it: ‘The form of the modern Icelandic ideal standard has been clearly defined: it is “pure Icelandic” which is effectively the language of the sagas. When it comes to defining “non-standard usage”, the myth has been that there is no such thing’. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that both variants have survived into our times.

Notes (1)

(2)

The present chapter is part of a study carried out within Language Change and Linguistic Variation in Nineteenth-Century Icelandic and the Emergence of a National Standard. The project has received funds from RANNÍS 2012 (#120646021) and the University of Iceland Research Fund. This is reminiscent of Ehala (1998), showing that Estonian was deliberately changed from subject-object-verb (SOV), considered to be German, to subjectverb-object (SVO), as observed by a sudden change in the basic embedded word order in newspapers in only a few decades. Still, unlike the supposed attempt at reintroducing aspects of Old Norse into Icelandic, the SVO pattern had already existed alongside the SOV pattern, albeit to a limited extent.

References Angantýsson, Á. (2011) The Syntax of Embedded Clauses in Icelandic and Related Languages. Reykjavík: Hugvísindastofnun.

166

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Árnason, K. (2003) Language planning and the structure of Icelandic. In K. Árnason (ed.) Útnorður: West Nordic Standardisation and Variation. Papers from a Symposium in Stockholm October 7th 2001 (pp. 193–218). Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics/University of Iceland Press. Bernharðsson, H. and Jónsson, J.G. (2014) Íslensk sendibréf frá 19.öld. See http://brefasafn. arnastofnun.is/ (accessed 10 January 2014). Bible (1866) Biblía: Það er heilög ritning. Endurskoðuð útgáfa. London: Hið brezka og erlenda Biblíufélag. See http://archive.org/details/biblaaderheilgri00lund (accessed 5 September 2014). Böðvarsson, Á. (1992) Íslenskt málfar. Íslensk þjóðfræði. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið. Deumert, A. (2003a) Bringing speakers back in? Epistemological reflections on speakeroriented explanations of language change. Language Sciences 25(1), 15–76. Deumert, A. (2003b) Describing language standardisation – Models and methods. In K. Árnason (ed.) Útnorður: West Nordic Standardisation and Variation. Papers from a Symposium in Stockholm October 7th 2001 (pp. 9–32). Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics/University of Iceland Press. Ehala, M. (1998) How a man changed a parameter value: The loss of SOV in Estonian subclauses. In R.M. Hogg and L. van Bergen (eds) Historical linguistics 1995: Selected papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995. Vol. 2: Germanic Linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 162 (pp. 73−88). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Elspaß, S. (2012) The use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation. In J.M. Hernández-Campoy and J.C. Conde-Silvestre (eds) The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics (pp. 156–169). Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Friðriksson, H.Kr. (1861) Íslenzk málmyndalýsíng. Kaupmannahöfn: Hið íslenzka bókmentafèlag. Friðriksson, H.Kr. (1871) Nokkrar athugagreinir um íslenzku: Verba valent usu. Viðaukablað við Þjóðólf 23.25–26, 105–111. Gal, S. (2005) Language ideologies compared: Metaphors of public/private. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15 (1), 23–37. Gíslason, K. (1844) Bókafregn. Fjölnir: Árrit handa Íslendingum 7, 71–104. Gunnarsson, S. (1878) Styrbjörn á Nesi. Ísafold 5 (3), 9–10. Hálfdanarson, G. (2005) From linguistic patriotism to cultural nationalism: Language and identity in Iceland. In A.K. Isaacs (ed.) Languages and Identities in Historical Perspective. Clioh’s Workshop III X. (pp. 55−67). Pisa: Edizioni Plus – Università di Pisa. Håkansson, D. (2011) Bisatsledföljden i äldre svenska – variation eller förändring? Arkiv för nordisk filologi 126, 93–140. Haugen, E. (1987) Blessings of Babel. Bilingualism and Language Planning. Problems and Pleasures. Contributions to the Sociology of Language 46. Berlin/New York/ Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Heimisdóttir, L.Ö. (2008) Yfirlit yfir beygingu karlkyns ija-stofna frá nítjándu öld til nútímamáls. BA thesis, University of Iceland. Heycock, C. and Wallenberg, J. (2013) How variational acquisition drives syntactic change: The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16.2–3, 127–157. Irvine, J.T. and Gal, S. (1995) The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research 62 (4), 967–1001. Irvine, J.T. and Gal, S. (2000) Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities (pp. 35–84). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Jónsson, B. (1893) Íslenzk Málsgreinafræði. Reykjavík: Prentsmiðja Ísafoldar.

‘Un-Icelandic’ Verb Placement in 19th- and Early 20th-Century Icelandic

167

Jónasson, J. (1909) Íslensk Málfræði Handa Byrjendum. Akureyri: Bókaverslun og prentsmiðja Odds Björnssonar. Kusters, W. (2003) Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. LOT 77. Utrecht: LOT. Leerssen, J. (1999) Nationaal Denken in Europa: Een Cultuurhistorische Schets. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Leonard, S.P. and Árnason, K. (2011) Language ideology and standardisation in Iceland. In T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds) Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 91−96). Oslo: Novus Press. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. ([1985] 2012) Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. Routledge Linguistics Classics (4th edn). Abingdon: Routledge. Ólafsson, B.Þ. (2004) Landsins útvöldu synir: Ritgerðir skólapilta Lærða skólans í íslenskum stíl 1846–1904. Sýnisbók íslenskrar alþýðumenningar 7. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan. Ottósson, K.G. (1990) Íslensk málhreinsun: sögulegt yfirlit. Rit Íslenskrar málnefndar 6. Reykjavík: Íslensk málnefnd. Schieffelin, B.B. and Doucet, R.C. (1998) The ‘real’ Haitian Creole: Ideology, metalinguistics, and orthographic choice. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard and P.V. Kroskrity (eds) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (pp. 285–316). Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 16. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sigtryggsson, J.B. (2003) Hrein tunga. In J.Y. Jóhannsson, K.Ó. Proppé and S. Jakobsson (eds) Þjóðerni í Þúsund ár? (pp. 91–103). Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan. Smári, J.J. (1920) Íslenzk Setningafræði. Reykjavík: Bókaverzlun Ársæls Árnasonar. Sundquist, J.D. (2003) The rich agreement hypothesis and Early Modern Danish embedded-clause word order. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26 (2), 233–258. Thomason, S.G. (2001) Language Contact. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Tímarit.is. (2012) Newspapers and periodicals from Iceland, Faeroe Islands and Greenland. National and University Library of Iceland. See http://timarit.is/ (accessed 27 August 2012). Vandenbussche, W. (2007) Shared standardization factors in the history of sixteen Germanic languages. In C. Fandrych and R. Salverda (eds) Standard, Variation und Sprachwandel in germanischen Sprachen. Standard, Variation and Language Change in Germanic Languages (pp. 25–36). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Viðarsson, H.F. van der Feest (2014) Þáttur málstöðlunar í afstöðu sagnar til neitunar í 19. aldar íslensku: ‘málsgreinir, sem mjer fannst eitthvert danskt óbragð að’. Orð og tunga 16, 1–24. Woolard, K.A. (2008) Why dat now?: Linguistic-anthropological contributions to the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (4), 432−452. Þorkelsson, J. (1870) Um nokkurar rangar orðmyndir eða orðskipanir í íslenzku. Norðanfari 9.41−46, 82−83, 86−87, 89−90.

11 School Grammars and Language Guides: Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century Dominik Banhold

Introduction: Standardisation, Language Codex and Prescriptivism The history of New High German is most often written as the history of the development of the German standard language. It is widely accepted to think of the standard as one variety among others (e.g. Ammon, 2004: 274) with specific features (e.g. Ammon, 1995; Klein, 2013): the standard variety is used in public and supraregional communication; it is taught at school and its norms are codified in the language codex. Thus, the standard variety is valid for the whole language community and is not restricted to specific regions or social groups. Language standardisation is a complex process that is influenced and determined by several aspects (Ammon, 2003: 3). For my chapter, the linguistic codex (or language codex) is of particular interest. Daneš (2004: 2204) considers norm codification to be the core of language standardisation, and Langer (2007: 237) identifies the codex as a ‘locus’ of the standard variety. Surprisingly, however, the German language codex itself has not received much scholarly interest so far (Klein, 2014: 220). We still do not know much about how linguistic forms and variants are presented in the codex, how they are marked and what information is given if variation exists.1 German is ‘a highly codified language’ (Davies & Langer, 2006: 43). However, there are many uncertainties among codex studies. For instance, Klein (2014) formulates the question of whether there is a German grammar

168

Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century

169

codex and if so, how many texts it consists of. So, what is the German language codex? The codex consists of texts that contain the norms of the German standard variety (Busse, 2006: 315) and that are consulted by language users in case of linguistic insecurities (Klein, 2014: 222). Klein (2014: 224) subdivides the codex into core codex and ‘para-codex’. The core codex comprises texts that are used in official institutions (schools, administration). Klein subsumes codex texts that do not have this official status under the term ‘para-codex’. Codex texts are often discussed in the context of the ‘contest between descriptivism and prescriptivism’ (Battistella, 2005: 9). However, prescriptivism and descriptivism are not mutually exclusive. Klein (2004) postulates that we should think of prescriptivism and descriptivism as the two poles of a scale along which codex texts can be placed. Concerning the text dimension (Klein, 2004: 381), a highly prescriptive text is expected to contain evaluations such as ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’. On the other hand, references to the range of varieties of the German language are more common in more descriptive texts. Prescriptivism can also be found in the data dimension (Klein, 2004: 381) in the way that certain language forms are selected against others to be codified and then are imparted by ‘language norm authorities’ (Polenz, 1999: 230) like teachers. When we deal with standardisation and the German language codex, the 19th and early 20th centuries are of special interest. The 19th century can be described as a period of increased language (norm) awareness. This is due to the symbolic function of the German language for the language community. German became a social symbol of middle-class intellectuals who thus became socially distinctive (e.g. Mattheier, 1991: 41; Elspaß, 2005b: 24). In nationalist Germany, German also became a symbol of an inseparable culture and the quest for a unified nation (e.g. Polenz, 1999: 3; Mattheier, 2000; Stukenbrock, 2005: 16). The outstanding importance of the German language led to the so-called popularisation of the German standard variety (Polenz, 1983), a phenomenon which makes the 19th century particularly important in view of the standardisation process the language was undergoing, since it was mainly in this century that the German language variety was enforced2 and codified (e.g. Mattheier, 2000: 1952; Eichinger, 2005: 365). It is therefore not very surprising that German was also established as a teaching subject in the 19th century, slowly dominating in the battle with Latin that lasted the whole century (e.g. Bartels, 1991). Many processes that some standardisation forces (like codification) and standard varieties (like being taught at school) underwent culminated in the 19th century. The early 20th century is interesting because these processes had already passed their heyday: the German standard variety was basically accepted in official communicative contexts, its norms were codified and German (standard) grammar teaching was fundamentally

170

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

established as an independent and essential school subject. That does not mean that standardisation ended in the first decades of the 20th century. Language standardisation as a whole is never completed but is ‘a process that is always in progress in any language that undergoes standardization’ (Milroy & Milroy, 1997: 75). We can merely identify periods of increased language standardisation efforts (like the 19th century) and periods with a comparatively declined aspiration towards standardisation (like the early 20th century), but these developments never disappear. This chapter will focus on some prescriptive elements in codex texts from the early 20th century. Prescriptive elements suggest that among variants of one variety some should be used against others. As prescriptivism as a whole can be observed in different dimensions, prescriptive elements appear in several parts of a codex text. Apart from the titles, grammar section headings and prefaces, prescriptive elements occur as evaluations when they favour one variant over another by labelling the variants. Such evaluations can be normative evaluations or frequency information. Frequency information (e.g. ‘more often’) can be described as a kind of interface between prescriptivism and descriptivism. On the one hand, such labels are descriptive since they represent actual usage, while on the other hand, they favour the variant that is used more often over the other, and are thus prescriptive (cf. Lakoff & Johnson’s [2003] ‘more is better’). In contrast, normative evaluations are clearly prescriptive. They can be subdivided into determinations and recommendations. Determinations (e.g. ‘right’, ‘wrong’) are more or less objective evaluations that determine what is correct or wrong with reference to the grammatical system of a language. Recommendations are more subjective than determinations. Theoretically, they do not have to refer to a variant’s conformity with a grammatical system (although they mostly will), but they proceed from emotion and intuition and are more attitudinal. This class contains labels such as ‘good’, ‘bad’ and ‘ugly’, and the more such prescriptive elements a codex text contains, the more prescriptive it is. Comparing prescriptive elements in different codex texts, this chapter also intends to reveal similarities and differences between several text types of the German language codex.

The Corpus In this chapter, I compare a text type from the core codex (school grammars) with one from the para-codex (popular usage guides).3 The 14 school grammars selected were all published between 1900 and 1932. They were designed for grammar classes at grammar schools in Germany and they all reached two or more editions and thus can be regarded as well-established grammar books.4

Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century

171

Usage guides are not as a rule designed for official state institutions, and in this regard they differ from school grammars. They do not present the entire grammar systematically but are restricted to common language ‘mistakes’ and problematical instances which often result in insecurities among the language community (e.g. Law, 2007). Like school grammars, German usage guides mainly developed during the 19th century (e.g. Klein, 2003). For this chapter, I analysed the three usage guides (Wustmann, 1903; Engel, 1922; Matthias, 1929) that constitute the ZweiDat corpus (cf. Banhold & Blidschun, 2013). 5 This database contains pre-structured information that is given in the texts (e.g. grammatical key terms, context labels, language forms). Some text elements that I will discuss here (e.g. evaluations) were not yet included in the database at the time of writing. The unbalanced nature of the corpus (14 school grammars against 3 usage guides) is due to the fact that there were far more school grammars published in that time whereas the three usage guides (Wustmann, Engel, Matthias) were the then well-established guides. However, a representative idea of prescriptivism in early 20th-century school grammars won’t be given by the analysis of only three texts due to the higher number of texts published.

Prescriptive Elements in School Grammars and Usage Guides Prescriptivism: The titles and section headings The 14 school grammars of the corpus have titles such as Deutsche Sprachlehre ‘German grammar book’, Handbuch der deutschen Sprache ‘handbook of the German language’ and Deutsche Schulgrammatik ‘German school grammar’. Their titles often contain additional information like a regional focus and the age of the intended readership and sometimes specify the school type they were designed for, while prescriptive elements cannot be found. This is not true for the usage guides: Wustmann’s Allerhand Sprachdummheiten. Kleine deutsche Grammatik des Zweifelhaften, des Falschen und des Häßlichen, Theodor Matthias’s Sprachleben und Sprachschäden and Eduard Engel’s Gutes Deutsch. Ein Führer durch Falsch und Richtig. These titles contain normative evaluations like ‘doubtful’, ‘wrong’, ‘good’ and ‘ugly’. Language variation is labelled negatively as ‘stupidity’ and ‘deficient language’. The titles are unequivocal: these texts tell the readers what is correct grammar and what will produce better usage. The titles also indicate that the discussion of language variants and their hierarchisation is not always left to objective criteria but follows emotional and subjective attitudes towards what is ‘ugly’ and what is ‘good’.

172

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

A more prescriptive attitude of usage guides is, moreover, indicated by the headings of the entries discussed. In Wustmann’s Sprachdummheiten, 26 out of 42 headings are adversary: ‘Des Volkes oder des Volks?’, ‘Stände oder stünde?’, ‘Jemandem oder jemand?’. Similarly, though less frequently than Wustmann, Matthias’s guide lists ‘Knapper oder knäpper?’ and ‘Unser oder unsrer?’. In Engel’s guide such headings do not occur. Regarding the formulation of titles and headings, usage guides are far more prescriptive and subjective than school grammars, which appear to be objective descriptions of German grammar.

Prescriptivism: The prefaces Standard norms and variants are widely discussed in the school grammars’ prefaces. In the early 20th century, language variants are presented as characteristics of a variable language. Illustrating language change, they are used to offer students an insight into stages of language history. Students are supposed to understand that language is ‘alive’ (Thomas, 1917: iv), and this can be achieved by discussing its variants (Lochner, 1907: 6). By demonstrating the existence of language variants, different communicative contexts reach centre stage. The practical use of language is highlighted rather than isolated grammar rules. This way of dealing with grammatical variants mainly developed from the turn of the century. Before, variants were mostly mentioned in reference to adherence of norms and we find many complaints about norm violations (e.g. Banhold & Klein, 2015), such as Heyse (1819: VIII), who wanted to ‘exterminate language mistakes’ (Sprachunrichtigkeiten zu vertilgen). The situation is different with respect to Wustmann’s usage guide. Wustmann appears as an extreme prescriptivist. His work is designed to correct (perceived) mistakes and to offer guidance when it comes to insecurities (Wustmann, 1903: ix). He observes a constant decay in language usage, and his preface comprises a lengthy complaint about the grievances of the language community’s performance. Consequently, we find a great deal of prescriptive metalanguage, such as häßlich ‘ugly’, widerwärtig ‘disgusting’, Mißbrauch ‘misuse’, Blödsinn ‘nonsense’, richtig ‘correct’, falsch ‘wrong’, Fehler ‘mistake’, Geschmacklosigkeiten ‘crudity’, garstig ‘nasty’, greulich ‘dreadful’, töricht ‘foolish’ and albern ‘silly’. Such subjective evaluations correspond to the formulation of the titles of usage guides described above. This attitudinal approach influences decisions on cases of variation and insecurities more than the common language use that Wustmann (1903: xiii) considers to be a tyrannus. He justifies his normative style by the practical demands of his book: neutrality and descriptivism are inappropriate. Wustmann’s subjective prescriptivism (e.g. Zimmermann, 2015) is noticed by Matthias (1929: iv). To be sure, Matthias (1929: iv) also intends

Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century

173

to judge in problematical cases (Ratgeber und Richter in Fällen schwankenden und schwierigen Sprachgebrauchs), but he wishes to strike a balance between prescriptivism and descriptivism. This intention implies a different way of dealing with variants from Wustmann. Hence, there are not many normative elements in his preface. Matthias (1929: vi) intends to be more objective when it comes to evaluation and he admits inappropriate prescriptive formulations in earlier editions of his usage guide (Matthias, 1892, 1897) which he ‘moderated’ (gemildert) and ‘suppressed’ (abgedämpft). Matthias points out the variability of language and its dynamic and changeability, and considers dialectal varieties to have their own rights and rules. Dialects do not exist in opposition to the written language, but alongside it and the written standard language should not be enhanced at the cost of other varieties (Matthias, 1929: vi). Engel’s book aims to guide its readers if they experience difficulties in language usage. Engel also intends to inform his readers about which language forms should be used and which should not. However, he wonders where correct and good German is to be found, rebuking former überhebliche ‘overbearing’ and herrschsüchtige ‘domineering’ authors of usage guides who tried to fesseln ‘shackle’ the German language (Engel, 1922: 7). It is clear that Engel had Wustmann in mind when he rails about fault-finders that pontificate about Sprachdummheiten ‘stupidities’ (Engel, 1922: 18) and only follow their own intuition and taste. Engel (1922: 18) condemns the normative and subjective style of authors like Wustmann who appear as all-wise schoolmasterly types. Engel (1922: 8) intends to discuss variants objectively without making use of imperatives, prohibitions or derisive language. In his considerations on what is good German, he also incorporated different language varieties, concluding that there should be different grammar books for the several co-existing varieties in order to cope with the diversity of the German language (Engel, 1922: 10). Like Matthias, Engel accepts the fact that there are language varieties with distinctive features. In his book, he describes the written standard language, arguing that its norms can objectively be found through observation of the language usage of educated writers. However, these norms are not stable because of the changing language. Therefore, it should not be argued which variant is ‘correct’ or ‘good’, but which one is ‘better’ according to the language of educated people at a certain time (Engel, 1922: 14). To sum up, in their prefaces school grammars and usage guides take account of the range of varieties that co-exist in the German language and that have their own norms. But the focus shifts from correct variants to variants that are more or less acceptable in distinct communicative contexts. This development mainly took place at the turn of the century: the prefaces of 19th-century school grammars were formulated more prescriptively than their successors; the difference between Wustmann

174

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

(1903) and Engel (1922), and Matthias’s (1929) self-announced revision of normative elements in earlier editions support the view that tolerance towards the varieties of the German language in the codex grew in the first decades of the 20th century and that a more objective and descriptive depiction of the German grammar was enforced during that period.

Prescriptivism: Grammatical descriptions Prescriptivism is most evident when it comes to an analysis of grammatical variants.6 Whereas the usage guides deal with language variants only, school grammars try to offer a relatively comprehensive survey of the grammar of German. However, as shown in Banhold (2015), many morphological variants are incorporated into school grammars as well. As I said above, an important aspect of dealing with variants is their labelling. In addition to evaluations that I explained above, there are also labels that associate a variant with a certain communicative context, e.g. time frames such as in the 18th century, nowadays), dialects (such as Bavarian, in Berlin), people (such as Luther, Goethe) and text types (such as poems). Evaluations can be classified as prescriptive elements, while such contextualisations are primarily descriptive components. Highly prescriptive codex texts are commonly assumed to contain a large number of evaluations. How can school grammars be characterised in this light? In the first three decades of the 20th century, we can find about 244 evaluations in 740 so-called MVIs – or Morphological Variety Issues, combinations of two morphological variants in metalinguistic thoughts7 – that is approximately one evaluation in three MVIs. With 0.17 normative evaluations per MVI in the first decades of the 20th century, normative evaluations were reduced to nearly 50% of their number in the first decades of the 19th century (0.32 normative evaluations per MVI). On the other hand, frequency information slightly increased by about 23% to 0.16 per MVI in the early 20th century. Early 20th-century school grammars can therefore be described as more descriptive than their predecessors. Statements such as den Held is ‘wrong’ (falsch) against den Helden as inflection of the accusative (Heinsius, 1801: 61) is no longer that common. In usage guides, we find a range of frequency labels that are also used in school grammars.8 However, school grammars differ in the occurrence of normative evaluations from usage guides. Common determinations are richtig ‘correct’ and falsch ‘wrong’, but we also find zulässig ‘permitted’, irrig ‘erroneous’, sprachwidrig ‘barbarism’ and verboten ‘forbidden’. These evaluations can be found both in school grammars and usage guides. Recommendations are also used in school grammars and usage guides. In school grammars, they take the form of gut ‘good’, schlecht ‘bad’,

Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century

175

schöner ‘nicer’, edler ‘more precious’ and vorzuziehen ‘to be preferred’. In usage guides, recommendations are far more diverse. In addition to those already mentioned, we find evaluations like bequem ‘convenient’, lächerlich ‘ridiculous’, albern ‘foolish’, schwülstig ‘overblown’, Nachäfferei ‘aping’ and unerträglich ‘obnoxious’. Taken from the lexical field of sensation and aesthetics, many recommendations indicate considerable subjectivism (e.g. hart ‘hard’, hässlich ‘ugly’, Missklang ‘dissonance’, steif ‘starchy’, verstümmelt ‘mutilated’, wohlklingend ‘euphonious’). There are also recommendations that express intense emotion, like abscheulich ‘repulsive’, ärgerlich ‘annoying’, beschämend ‘humiliating’, einfältig ‘bovine’, Schande ‘disgrace’ and widerwärtig ‘disgusting’. Although the former were all taken from Wustmann, Matthias and Engel also use highly subjective and attitudinal evaluations, such as peinlich ‘awkward’ and Schlamperei ‘sloppiness’ (Engel) or abscheulich ‘repulsive’ and widerlich ‘disgusting’ (Matthias). Nevertheless, as the list shows, Matthias and Engel don’t use the range of emotional recommendations that we find with Wustmann. Such attitudinal recommendations are very common in usage guides but are rarely found in the school grammars. For example, according to Lochner (1907: 21), the s-plural in Kerls is ‘erroneous’ (fehlerhaft) whereas Matthias (1929: 48) labels this form as ‘disgusting’ (widerlich) and Wustmann (1903: 23) calls it ‘vulgar’ (unfein). However, such labels can also occasionally be found in older school grammars, for example in Gelbe (1877: 66), who stigmatises the leaving of the dative inflection morpheme (e.g. Hunde versus Hund) as ‘nuisance’ (Unsitte). All in all, the 20th-century school grammars analysed are far more objective than the usage guides in the corpus when it comes to their use of prescriptive metalanguage. Even aesthetic recommendations, which are often used in all three usage guides, are uncommon for school grammars of this period. Dealing with the intensity of prescriptivism of codex texts implies discussing descriptive elements as well. Particular characteristics of descriptivism are contextualisations. In school grammars, contextualisations rapidly increase after the turn of the century. Around 1900, the number of contextualisations triples to 0.37 contextualisations per MVI, which is a vast and substantial development that corresponds to the statements on language variety made in the prefaces of the school grammars from the early 20th century. Most common contextual labels are temporal (früher ‘past’, damals ‘back then’, heute ‘today’), diatopic (in Leipzig, niederdeutsch ‘Low German’, bairisch ‘Bavarian’) and stylistic (Umgangssprache ‘vernacular’, gehobene Sprache ‘elevated style’). But the grammarians also appeal to particular authorities or literary genres (Goethe, Luther, Poesie). Contextualisations play an important role in usage guides, too. ZweiDat currently contains 158 different entries9 with 91% of them dealing with

176

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

morphological issues. In these 158 entries, we find 2572 contextual labels, which is an average of 16.28 labels per entry. Contextualisations are very common in all three usage guides, though Matthias and Engel (about 17 contextual labels per entry) have more than Wustmann (just under 14 per entry). Although this difference is not large, it fits the results formulated concerning normative statements in prefaces and evaluations. Again, Wustmann appears to be less descriptive than Matthias and Engel. There are significant differences regarding the range of contextual labels used in school grammars and usage guides. For example, we may find a greater diversity of authorities mentioned: school grammars almost exclusively refer to (classical) authors like Goethe, Schiller and Lessing (cf. Banhold, 2015). The three usage guides analysed refer not only to a greater number of classic authors as well as to contemporary authors (e.g. Thomas Mann in Matthias [1929: 52], Hauptmann in Engel [1922: 117]) but they also list politicians (e.g. Bismarck [Matthias, 1929: 93], Hindenburg [Matthias, 1929: 65]), grammarians (e.g. Adelung [Matthias, 1929: 88], Behaghel [Matthias, 1929: 66]) and philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche [Matthias, 1929: 91], Schopenhauer [Engel, 1922: 253]), resulting in nearly 200 different names. In 19th-century school grammars, down to 1932 (i.e. in 48 texts!), only 23 different persons are mentioned. Diatopic labels found in school grammars mainly include niederdeutsch/ norddeutsch ‘Low German, north Germany’, mitteldeutsch ‘Middle Germany’ and süddeutsch ‘south Germany’. In usage guides there are more detailed labels, like certain regions (e.g. Böhmen ‘Bohemia’, Sachsen ‘Saxony’, Schwaben ‘Swabia’, Oberrhein ‘Upper Rhine’) or specific cities (e.g. Berlin, Hamburg, Leipzig, München, Stuttgart), which are uncommon in school grammars (we only find ‘in Swabia’ [Schwaben] in Helmsdörfer, 1908: 47). This greater diversity in contextualisation can be observed regarding stylistic and technical labels as well. In school grammars, technical labels are very rare (occur only once in Sütterlin, 1906: 115 [‘language of the church’ Kirchensprache]) whereas stylistic labels are often used to refer to variants like Umgangssprache ‘vernacular’ or gehobene Sprache ‘elevated style’. Usage guides on the other hand are more diverse. Technical labels are frequently quoted (such as Behördensprache ‘administration’, Bergmannssprache ‘miners’, Zeitungen ‘newspapers’, Kaufleute ‘salesmen’, Wissenschaft ‘science’), while stylistic labels also include private language use (e.g. Familie ‘family’). All in all, it must be stated that both school grammars and usage guides refer to different communicative contexts, and the variety of the German language is of great importance to these codex texts. However, comprising a much broader range of labels, usage guides appear to cover this variety more thoroughly than school grammars. The previous passage described the marking of variants. Labels are always explicit; they are part of the grammatical comments. Against this

Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century

177

background, evaluations can be characterised as direct. However, certain variants can also be imposed when other variants are ignored. If a codex text lists variant A but does not mention variant B although variant B exists in actual language use, variant B is stigmatised by exclusion. This prescriptive strategy can only be revealed through analysis of specific problematical issues and is more likely to be found in grammars than in usage guides. Once incorporated in a usage guide, an issue is expected to be discussed comprehensively with all existing variants. In school grammars, variants are regularly excluded, for example when it comes to the pluralisation of nouns that can form their plural with or without vowel mutation. Thus, Florstedt and Stieber (1926: 49) and Brömse (1927: 47) only register the form die Böden ‘floors’, whereas Ammon and Gerhards (1928: 97) list die Böden and die Boden. Usage guides present both variants: according to Engel (cf. 1922: 108), the plural form Böden exists alongside Boden in northern Germany and is also correct in written standard German there. Wustmann (1903: 16) thinks Böden is wrong, which again confirms that his book is more prescriptive than Engel’s guide. Matthias does not discuss this issue at all. Another example is the dative inflection of the indefinite pronoun jemand ‘someone’. According to Wustmann and Matthias, three variants are found: jemand, jemanden and jemandem. Matthias (1929: 37), however, prefers jemand since jemanden and jemandem are newer forms and thus superfluous (although these would create distinctive forms). Wustmann (1903: 46) likewise refuses to accept jemandem and jemanden. This problem is also discussed in some school grammars. Lochner (1907: 25) only records jemandem, and Helmsdörfer (1908: 63), Hoffa et al. (1912: 117) and Stoll (1932: 55) only jemand. Thomas (1917: 24) lists jemand and jemandem but considers jemand to be better than jemandem, which is similar to Bojunga (1924: 32) who favours jemand over jemandem since the latter is rare. Matthias (1908: 32) accepts all three forms in his school grammar though preferring only one in his usage guide. This difference between the texts by the same author that represent two text types of the codex supports the observations made above that school grammars appear less prescriptive than usage guides.10 As we can see, evaluation of variants by exclusion is a common phenomenon in school grammars. Hence, if we talk about prescriptivism in codex texts, we also have to take account of this prescriptive strategy.

Conclusion Early 20th-century school grammars and usage guides both contain prescriptive and descriptive elements but usage guides (and Wustmann’s most so) contain more prescriptive elements than school grammars. Normative evaluations can be found in the titles of usage guides and in Wustmann’s preface, but they are also common in the grammatical

178

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

comments of both usage guides and school grammars. Another prescriptive element unveiled in the prefaces of Matthias and especially of Wustmann is the authors’ intention to fight language variants and to correct the language of speakers. These two texts also contrast variants in the headings of individual entries, which must be considered a prescriptive element, too. A prescriptive strategy that is often used in school grammars is the stigmatisation of variants by exclusion. On the other hand, variants are accepted in prefaces of school grammars and they are drawn upon to exemplify the dynamic of the German language. The acceptance of the co-existence of different varieties can also be found in prefaces by Matthias and Engel. This descriptive approach is evident in the grammatical descriptions of the codex texts. A huge number of contextualisations can be observed in school grammars and usage guides, which presents them as texts that take account of several communicative contexts. Together with increased prescriptivism or descriptivism, we find a relatively subjective or objective prescriptive metalanguage. Subjective evaluations can be found in the titles of usage guides and in Wustmann’s preface. They are part of the grammatical descriptions of both usage guides and school grammars but they are more common and diverse in usage guides. Wustmann especially follows his own intuition and subjective taste to describe language variants. By contrast, Engel appears to be more objective. He does not use many emotional evaluations and declares actual usage to be his descriptive model. Another finding that confirms the correlation between prescriptivism and subjectivity is the difference between 19th- and 20th-century school grammars. We find more subjective and emotional evaluations in older school grammars which also contain more normative evaluations as well as fewer contextualisations and thus appear to be more prescriptive than later ones. The differences found indicate a certain variability of codex texts. Indeed, these texts underwent considerable developments over time. We saw that a more descriptive and objective approach to grammar description was enforced in the first three decades of the 20th century.11 The German language codex is becoming more descriptive in a period when the basic enforcement of the German standard variety came to an end. It seems that normative grammatical description is no longer required in the way it was in the 19th century when the struggle for the standard variety climaxed. Having a basically enforced standard variety, the focus shifts to a more practical and open-minded dealing with language variants. Hence, I can conclude that the enforcement of increased descriptivism in the German language codex concurs with the ending of the basic enforcement of the German standard variety.

Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century

179

Notes (1) (2)

(3) (4)

(5) (6) (7)

(8) (9) (10) (11)

There are analyses of codex texts, but their primary intention is not to describe the codex itself but certain language phenomena (e.g. Davies & Langer, 2006) or the conformity of codified norms with real language usage (e.g. Elspaß, 2005a, 2005b). Although this variety spread among the language community (due to supraregional developments, the influence of grammarians, teachers, language associations, etc.), it was not written and spoken by all members of the language community. In several papers dealing with ‘language history from below’, Elspaß (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) elucidates that the majority of Germans did not use that variety in everyday language. For a list of the chosen texts, see the Appendix at the end of the chapter. The grammars are part of a greater corpus of school grammars that were published between 1800 and 1932 and that I analysed elsewhere (Banhold, in press). Reference will be made to the school grammars from the 19th century to clarify some developments this text type had run through based on this analysis. See http://www.zweidat.germanistik.uni-wuerzburg.de/. The results presented here are based on an analysis of the grammar chapters that deal with inflectional morphology. To provide an illustration of this concept, the dative inflection morphemes -e and -Ø build a common MVI in school grammars (e.g. Könige versus König). The number of such morpheme combinations gives information about the number of variants that are presented in a grammar. In such an MVI, one or both variants can be labelled by an evaluation or a contextualisation. In other MVIs, none of the variant is labelled (cf. Banhold, in press). Detailed quantitative data (as I presented for school grammars) must be given in a broader analysis of this text type. An entry in a usage guide (such as ‘the pluralisation of nouns’) is not the same as an MVI in a school grammar. Most entries will comprise several (approximately 2–5) MVIs. A further comparison of Matthias’ school grammar and usage guide would be promising. This assumption is supported in a comparing analysis of current codex texts (cf. Banhold, in press).

References Primary sources

Gelbe, T. (1877) Deutsche Sprachlehre für höhere Lehranstalten. Eisenach: Bacmeister. Heinsius, T. (1801) Neue Deutsche Sprachlehre besonders zum Gebrauch in Schulen eingerichtet (Vol. I). Leipzig: Fleischer. Heyse, J.C.A. (1819) Kleine theoretisch-praktische deutsche Grammatik. Hannover: Hahn.

Secondary sources

Ammon, U. (1995) Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Das Problem der nationalen Varietäten. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Ammon, U. (2003) On the social forces that determine what is standard in a language and on conditions of successful implementation. In U. Ammon and K.J. Mattheier (eds) Sprachstandards (= sociolinguistica 17) (pp. 1−10). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ammon, U. (2004) Standard variety. In HSK 3.1 (2nd edn; pp. 273−283). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

180

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Banhold, D. (2015) Sprachnorm, Sprachbewertung, Sprachlehre. Zum Umgang mit flexionsmorphologischer Varianz in deutschen Schulgrammatiken (1801−1932). Hamburg: Dr. Kovac. Banhold, D. (in press) Ignorieren, Markieren, Hierarchisieren. Präskriptive Handlungen im neuhochdeutschen Sprachkodex. Banhold, D. and Blidschun, C. (2013) Die Datenbank ZweiDat. Sprachliche Zweifelsfälle in historischer Perspektive. In I. Kratochvílová and N.R. Wolf (eds) Grundlagen einer sprachwissenschaftlichen Quellenkunde (= Studien zur deutschen Sprache 66) (pp. 343−358). Tübingen: Narr. Banhold, D. and Klein, W.P. (2015) Standard, Varianz und Sprachbewusstsein. Kernbegriffe der neuhochdeutschen Sprachentwicklung in deutschen Schulgrammatiken. In J. Kiesendahl and C. Ott (eds) Linguistik und Schulbuchforschung. Gegenstände Methoden −Perspektiven (pp. 285−302). Göttingen: V&R. Bartels, C. (1991) Die Entwicklung des Deutschunterrichts an den Gymnasien Dortmund, Arnsberg und Wesel in der 1. Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. In H.D. Erlinger and C. Knobloch (eds) Muttersprachlicher Unterricht im 19. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zu seiner Genese und Institutionalisierung (= RGL 117) (pp. 129−210). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Battistella, E. (2005) Bad Language. Are Some Words Better than Others? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Busse, D. (2006) Sprachnorm, Sprachvariation, Sprachwandel. Überlegungen zu einigen Problemen der sprachwissenschaftlichen Beschreibung des Deutschen im Verhältnis zu seinen Erscheinungsformen. Deutsche Sprache 34, 314−333. Daneš, F. (2004) Herausbildung und Reform von Standardsprachen und Destandardisierung. In HSK 3.3 (2nd edn; pp. 2197−2209). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Davies, W.V. and Langer, D. (2006) The Making of Bad Language. Lay Linguistic Stigmatisations in German: Past and Present (= Vario Lingua 28). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Eichinger, L.M. (2005) Standardnorm, Sprachkultur und die Veränderung der normativen Erwartungen. In L.M. Eichinger and W. Kallmeyer (eds) Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache? (pp. 363−381). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Elspaß, S. (2005a) Sprachgeschichte von unten. Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert (= RGL 263). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Elspaß, S. (2005b) Language norm and language reality. Effectiveness and limits of prescriptivism in New High German. In W.V. Davies and N. Langer (eds) Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages (= Studia Linguistica Germanica 75) (pp. 20–45). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Elspaß, S. (2005c) Standardisierung des Deutschen. Ansichten aus der neueren Sprachgeschichte von unten. In L.M. Eichinger and W. Kallmeyer (eds) Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache? (pp. 63–99). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Klein, W.P. (2003) Sprachliche Zweifelsfälle als linguistischer Gegenstand. Zur Einführung in ein vergessenes Thema der Sprachwissenschaft. Linguistik online 16. Klein, W.P. (2004) Deskriptive statt präskriptive Sprachwissenschaft? Über ein sprachtheoretisches Bekenntnis uns seine analytische Präzisierung. ZGL 32, 376–405. Klein, W.P. (2013) Warum brauchen wir einen klaren Begriff von Standardsprachlichkeit und wie könnte er gefasst werden? In J. Hagemann, W.P. Klein and S. Staffeldt (eds) Pragmatischer Standard (= Stauffenburg Linguistik 73) (pp. 15−33). Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Klein, W.P. (2014) Gibt es einen Kodex für die Grammatik des Neuhochdeutschen und, wenn ja, wie viele? Oder: Ein Plädoyer für die Sprachkodexforschung. In A. Plewnia and A. Witt (eds) Sprachverfall? Dynamik – Wandel – Variation (pp. 219−242). Berlin/ Boston, MA: de Gruyter.

Prescriptivism in the German Language Codex in the Early 20th Century

181

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2003) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Langer, N. (2007) Finding standard German. Thoughts on linguistic codification. In C. Fandrych and R. Salverda (eds) Standard, Variation und Sprachwandel in germanischen Sprachen (pp. 217−241). Tübingen: Narr. Law, C. (2007) Sprachratgeber und Stillehren in Deutschland (1923−1967). Ein Vergleich der Sprach- und Stilauffassung in vier politischen Systemen (= Studia Linguistica Germanica 84). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Mattheier, K.J. (1991) Standardsprache als Sozialsymbol. Über kommunikative Folgen gesellschaftlichen Wandels. In R. Wimmer (ed.) Das 19. Jahrhundert. Sprachgeschichtliche Wurzeln des heutigen Deutsch (pp. 41–72). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Mattheier, K.J. (2000) Die Durchsetzung der deutschen Hochsprache im 19. und beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert. Sprachgeographisch, sprachsoziologisch. In HSK 2.2 (pp. 1951−1966). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1997) Exploring the social constraints on language change. In S. Eliasson (ed.) Language and its Ecology. Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen (pp. 75−103). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Polenz, P.v. (1983) Die Sprachkrise der Jahrhundertwende und das bürgerliche Bildungsdeutsch. Sprache und Literatur 52, 3−13. Polenz, P.v. (1999) Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Vol. 3). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Stukenbrock, A. (2005) Deutscher Sprachnationalismus. Sprachreport 1, 16−22. Zimmermann, C. (2015) Von abscheulichen Unsitten, unerträglichen Moden und edelster Sprache – Emotionalitätonalität in Sprachratgebern zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts. In L. Vanková (ed.) Emotionalität im Text (pp. 481–490). Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Zweidat: Würzburg. See http://www.zweidat.germanistik.uni-wuerzburg.de/ (accessed 20 June 2016).

182

Part 2: Prescription and Tradition

Appendix: Corpus of Texts Selected for Analysis Corpus of school grammars Ammon, H. and Gerhards, T. (1928) Deutsche Sprachlehre für höhere Lehranstalten (I). Paderborn: Schöningh. Bojunga, K. (1924) Deutsche Sprachlehre. Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg. Brömse, H. (1927) Deutsche Sprachlehre (I). Berlin: Weidmann. Florstedt, F. and Stieber, W. (1926) Neue deutsche Sprachlehre auf Grund der Richtlinien für die Lehrpläne der höheren Schulen Preußens von 1925 (I+II). Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg. Gölz, G. and Schmidt-Voigt, H. (1927) Deutsche Sprachlehre für höhere Lehranstalten (Vols. I and II). Breslau: Hirt. Helmsdörfer, A. (1908) Deutsche Sprachlehre für höhere Lehranstalten. Leipzig/Wien: Freytag/Tempsky Kesselringsche Hofbuchhandlung. Hoffa, A. and Reinhold, F. (1912) Deutsche Sprachlehre (Vols. I and II). Leipzig/Frankfurt am Main. Le Mang, R. (1927) Deutsche Sprachlehre für die unteren und mittleren Klassen der höheren Schulen. Münster Aschendorff. Lochner, J. (1907) Deutsche Schulgrammatik für höhere Lehranstalten. Leipzig: Freytag. Matthias, T. (1908) Handbuch der deutschen Sprache für höhere Schulen. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer. Mensing, O. (1903) Deutsche Grammatik für höhere Schulen. Dresden: Ehlermann. Stoll, M. (1932) Neue Sprachlehre für den Deutschunterricht an den höheren Lehranstalten. München: Kellerer. Sütterlin, L. and Waag, A. (1906) Deutsche Sprachlehre für höhere Lehranstalten. Leipzig: Voigtländer. Thomas, R. (1917) Abriß der deutschen Sprachlehre für die Unter- und Mittelstufe höherer Lehranstalten. Bamberg: Buchner.

Corpus of usage guides Engel, E. (1922) Gutes Deutsch. Ein Führer durch Falsch und Richtig. Leipzig: Hesse & Becker. Matthias, T. (1892) Sprachleben und Sprachschäden. Ein Führer durch die Schwankungen und Schwierigkeiten des deutschen Sprachgebrauchs. Leipzig: Richard Richter. Matthias, T. (1897) Sprachleben und Sprachschäden. Ein Führer durch die Schwankungen und Schwierigkeiten des deutschen Sprachgebrauchs. Leipzig: Brandstetter. Matthias, T. (1929) Sprachleben und Sprachschäden. Ein Führer durch die Schwankungen und Schwierigkeiten des deutschen Sprachgebrauchs (6nd edn). Leipzig: Brandstetter. Wustmann, G. (1903) Allerhand Sprachdummheiten. Kleine deutsche Grammatik des Zweifelhaften, des Falschen und des Häßlichen. Ein Hilfsbuch für alle, die sich öffentlich der deutschen Sprache bedienen (3rd edn). Leipzig: Fr. Wilh. Grunow.

Part 3 Usage Guides: An English Tradition

12 A Perspective on Prescriptivism: Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage1 Robin Straaijer

Introduction How are usage guides received in the media, and what do these reviews tell us about popular ideas on usage and usage guides? Just like the usage guide itself, these reviews constitute a genre that mediates published discourses on language and normativism. In this chapter, I will investigate such a public discourse by investigating how a single usage guide, the third edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage, was received in the press. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Burchfield, 1996, henceforth NFMEU) by Robert Burchfield was published as the third edition of H.W. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926, henceforth MEU), a second edition of which was published by Ernest Gowers (1965) as Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Fowler’s original book quickly became a success and ‘[t]he miscellany of items, the alphabetic format, and the didactic stance […] became the generic model for prescriptive usage books’ (Peters, 2006: 763). In their study of how ‘Fowler’ emerged as an institution, Busse and Schröder (2010) investigated reviews of NFMEU, arguing that ‘[r]eviews have to be regarded as an immediate reaction of a scholar to the work of another scholar, and, owing to this, at least to a certain extent they (can) reflect day-to-day politics, conflicts between different schools of thought, etc.’ (Busse & Schröder, 2010: 50). Similarly, reviews in popular print media such as newspapers and magazines can be seen as reflecting and constructing public perceptions of the work they discuss. There is also wider relevance since, as Curzan (2014: 61) argues, ‘the stuff of language history should include the debates about language being waged publicly in newspapers, online, in reviews of dictionaries and usage guides, and elsewhere’.

185

186

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

What kind of language framed the reception of NFMEU? It received a fair amount of attention in the print media, very likely because it was generally perceived as a descriptivist take on a classic prescriptivist work because Burchfield was an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and had produced the OED Supplement (1972−1986) before publishing NFMEU. In an attempt to uncover public ideas regarding prescriptivism and the role of usage guides and their writers, I will investigate the reception of NFMEU as an instance of a contemporary public discourse on prescriptivism by analysing the language of its reviews.

Method and Data Critical discourse analysis Broadly speaking, the method I have adopted here is a corpus-driven critical discourse analysis, and I will investigate the reception of NFMEU as an instance of a contemporary public discourse on prescriptivism. The term ‘discourse’ is used here in the sense of a ‘[w]ay of signifying experience from a particular perspective’ (Fairclough, 2010: 96). The underlying premise in my analysis is that discursive differences in the reviews point to differences in ideological views regarding prescription, since as Simpson (1993: 6) puts it, the ‘central component of the critical linguistic creed is the conviction that language reproduces ideology’. Phrased more plainly, ‘[t]he terms in which we talk about something shape the way we think about it’ (Tannen, 1998: 14). In this case, the members of different social groups such as linguists and journalists, speakers of British or American English or institutions such as journals and popular media, ‘act “by” their members’ (van Dijk, 2003: 354).

The corpus For the present analysis, I created a corpus of 33 reviews of NFMEU from newspapers, magazines and academic journals published between 1996 and 1998, amounting to 54,392 words of text. To find these reviews, an overview of which may be found in the Appendix, I searched the databases Factiva, JSTOR, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, MLA International Bibliography and ProQuest Historical Newspapers using the search terms ‘burchfield’ and ‘modern english usage’, a publication date after 1 January 1996 and where possible adding ‘reviews’ as the text type. The reviews I found and was able to access are listed in the References. The reviews were converted into XML files encoded in Unicode. Block quotes, which are not part of the actual text of the reviews, were not included in the corpus, nor were lists of references. The approach combines quantitative and qualitative analyses, starting with a keyword analysis in order to be able to identify specific words to be investigated more closely in their immediate

Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 187

Table 12.1 The nine strongest keywords in the corpus of reviews of NFMEU in order of keyness Relative Relative frequency in frequency Frequency Frequency Keyness in reviews in BNC-ANC BNC-ANC* Rank Keyword in reviews 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

burchfield fowler usage english fowler’s gowers burchfield’s language edition

469 406 305 487 174 79 62 215 121

0,862 0,746 0,561 0,895 0,320 0,145 0,114 0,395 0,222

12 424 1,711 26,320 38 27 1 21,551 3,200

0,023

0,019

7068 5065 2957 2612 2464 1089 938 898 816

* Blank spaces indicate that the relative frequencies in the BNC–ANC was not calculated by WordSmith.

context. This will in turn lead to the investigation of other words in context, providing an insight into the broader discourse of the selected genre.

Keywords Keywords give an indication of the ‘aboutness’ of a text (Scott, 2002: 44). I used WordSmith Tools (Scott, 2008) in order to extract keywords from my corpus of reviews of NFMEU, using a combination of the British National Corpus (BNC) and the American National Corpus (ANC) as a reference corpus.2 The nine strongest keywords are shown in Table 12.1. What is most striking about these figures is the rather sharp drop in keyness after the second and fifth keywords. The first two keywords suggest that the reviews were very much focused on Burchfield and Fowler. The next three keywords come primarily from the title of the work under review. I will explore these in the fifth section, which forms the main part of this chapter. By investigating the immediate context of these keywords, it should be possible to show what kind of language is used in the press to discuss the concepts that these keywords represent, and to identify the language used to convey, explicitly or implicitly, ideology about usage. But first I will go into the question of how NFMEU was evaluated in the reviews.

Evaluations of NFMEU The language used in reviews very likely depends on whether they are evaluated positively, negatively or whether the reviewer is more neutral, as well as on the conventions of the genre of book reviews and the personal

188

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition Positive review

Neutral review

Negative review

4

3

2

1

0 6

99

r1

be

to Oc

No

6

99

r1

be

vem

D

6

99

r1

be

m ece

u Jan

ar y

19

97

ru Feb

ar y

19

97 M

arc

h1

99

7 Ap

ril

19

97 M

ay

19

97

7

99

e1

Jun

Jul

y1

99

7

7

99

r1

be

m ece

19

98

D

Figure 12.1 Positive, neutral and negative reviews by month of publication, 1996–1998

style of the author of the review. In this chapter, I will focus on the first of these three factors. Of the 33 reviews selected, I judged 11 to be evaluated positively, negatively and neutrally. Figure 12.1 shows how the reviews are distributed across the period focused on, i.e. after the publication of NFMEU, and how the book was evaluated. We see that the negative reviews fall mostly in the first half of the period during which reviews are published, while the second half shows more positive reviews. How does the evaluation in a review depend on the type of publication in which it occurs, and which part of the anglophone world does the publication in question come from? Figure 12.2 shows the distribution of evaluations of NFMEU based on these two variables. It also shows that the reviews published in newspapers in the US and UK are largely negative, while those published in academic journals tend to be positive and that the magazine reviews present rather more neutral accounts. As for the reviews published elsewhere, there seems to be a rather greater balance. Figure 12.2 can also explain the temporal distribution of positive and negative reviews in Figure 12.1. Newspapers operate fast, usually putting out reviews of books soon after they are published. The publication process for journals takes longer and hence these reviews are published later. The data in Figure 12.2 also show that reviews published in the UK are generally more positive than those published elsewhere, and that this is because of the influence of the journals in the corpus, most of which are based in the UK.3 In a relatively late review by H.C. Morton, it was suggested that American reviews were more polarised: British reviewers indicated by their comments that he succeeded admirably. In the United States, however, where the reviews ranged from modest approbation to denunciation, the book was caught in the old cross-fire between descriptivism and prescriptivism. Whereas British

Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 189 Positive review

Neutral review

Negative review

5

4

3

2

1

0 Newspaper Magazine

Journal

Published in the USA

Newspaper Magazine

Journal

Published in the UK

Newspaper

Journal

Published elsewhere

Figure 12.2 Distribution of reviews by origin and type of publication

reviewers called him descriptive without a negative intent, Burchfield’s detractors in the United States used descriptive as a pejorative – as a synonym for permissive – echoing the tone of the critics who denounced W3 in the 1960s (Morton, 1998: 322−323).4 Such an echo, a conscious one or not, is found in the review by John Simon (1997), who uses the term ‘F3’ to refer to NFMEU, commenting that the book’s ‘principal problem […] is permissiveness’. Overall, it seems, NFMEU was well received in journals, where the book was reviewed by linguists, but received critically by a non-specialised audience. Curiously, this was exactly the opposite way in which MEU was received in the late 1920s (see Burchfield, 1991: 104).

Comparing Burchfield and Fowler In this section, I will discuss various themes that suggested themselves by the language used in the reviews of NFMEU. I identified these themes after running concordances with the help of WordSmith Tools for the keywords burchfield and fowler. These searches produced collocation lists which were used to gain insight into the type of contexts in which these keywords are most frequently used. It will hardly come as a surprise that the most frequently occurring phrase with the word fowler is fowler’s modern english usage (36), which refers both to the title of Fowler’s MEU and to Burchfield’s NFMEU. It is also quite noticeable, though perhaps again not surprising, that in many of the instances Fowler and Burchfield are mentioned in the same

190

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

sentence. We may expect Burchfield to be compared with Fowler,5 and indeed most comments that mention either author or both do this. Consequently, concordances for the coordinator but and the connective adjuncts however and instead were run to reveal opposite sides of arguments or evaluations. Lastly, concordances were run for the keywords english and usage. Outside the collocation english usage, the word usage is most frequently used by reviewers with a linguistic background, even in evaluative expressions such as ‘good usage’ and ‘correct usage’. It is used almost always in between inverted commas, indicating that these terms ought to be viewed critically. The themes which suggested themselves as a result of my keyword analysis are the following: descriptiveness versus prescriptiveness, passivity, permissiveness, trading on Fowler’s name and the need for an update of Fowler. These themes will be dealt with one by one.

Descriptive versus prescriptive As mentioned in the introduction, NFMEU was regarded as a descriptivist revision of a classic prescriptivist work and this becomes clear upon analysing the corpus. In several reviews, Fowler and Burchfield are placed on opposite sides of a (perceived) prescriptive–descriptive divide, as is done explicitly by John Lanchester in (1) (emphasis added, here and throughout). (1) Fowler was the prescriptivist par excellence (and that is one of the principal reasons for the survival of Modern English Usage); all professional linguists, however, are descriptivists, and Robert Burchfield is no exception. (Lanchester, 1997) The prescriptive–descriptive dichotomy is an old one, which is invoked – often uncritically – when grammars and grammarians are discussed (see Beal, 2004: 105−122). Debates on other forms of linguistic normativism, such as usage, are also often framed as having only these two sides. Interestingly, among the reviewers using the labels prescriptive or descriptive, only William Safire and The Economist explicitly call Burchfield a prescriptivist,6 which may be explained by the fact that NFMEU belongs to an essentially prescriptive genre. However, Burchfield’s descriptive, evidence-based approach also earned him positive reviews (mostly from linguists) as shown in (2). (2) Constructions of usage in MEU3 are, for example, founded not on the ipse-dixit or ‘the cheerful attitude of infallibility’ which Fowler had professed, but rather on the principles of empirical research and the new sense of rigour which this inevitably brings. (Mugglestone, 1997: 439)

Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 191

The word descriptive is used less in negative reviews than in positive ones, but (3), from the critic John Simon’s review, is interesting because of words used in the sentence after. (3) It must be faced right off that Burchfield is essentially, though not entirely, of the descriptive rather than prescriptive school of language savants. Although he bridles at some usages, he is also astoundingly tolerant of others. (Simon, 1997) The attitude revealed by the phrase ‘astoundingly tolerant’ is significant and will be discussed below. Descriptivism evokes the notion of linguistics, so how are linguists regarded in the reviews? The evaluation of NFMEU is clearly related to the fact that contrary to Fowler and Gowers, Burchfield was considered a linguist (4). (4) It was probably inevitable that an updating of Fowler by a linguist would leave the old book in shreds. (O’Conner, 1997) Linguists are seen as ill-equipped to discuss usage, or even more strongly put, linguistics is posited as detrimental to good usage advice. According to Simon (1997), ‘professional linguistic scholars’ have ‘only slavish dependence on what the unwashed say and the illiterate write’.

Passivity Another linguistic vice attributed to Burchfield is that ‘along with the linguists […] he watches the language go by’ (Wensberg, 1996). Indeed, passivity, and even cowardice, is what Burchfield is condemned for most violently by the writers of negative reviews. Lehmann-Haupt puts it perhaps most strongly in (5). (5) By revising Fowler in the manner he has done, Mr. Burchfield has betrayed him to the enemy camp and transformed him from an upholder of standards into a passive observer of trends. (LehmannHaupt, 1996) The use of the words betrayed and enemy is especially telling as it serves to vilify Burchfield even more strongly. Fowler is the original work and therefore positively evaluated, while ‘Burchfield in many ways betrays what Fowler and Gowers stood for’ (Simon, 1997), and his work is evaluated negatively as a consequence. Simon finds that in NFMEU ‘passive defeatism is the order of the day’ and that Fowler showed a ‘determination to resist, and hope even against hope’, much preferable to ‘F3’s supine acquiescence’,

192

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

concluding that ‘[i]t would be better for Burchfield to be proved wrong by the future than to prove a doormat in the present’ (Simon, 1997). The same goes for Patricia O’Conner, writer of the conservative usage guide Woe Is I (O’Conner, 1998); see (6). (6) Mr. Burchfield flinches from declaring a particular usage right or wrong, but Fowler is frankly judgmental, almost moralistic, and doesn’t hesitate to call a usage ‘rot,’ ‘nonsense,’ ‘illiterate’ or ‘slovenly’. (O’Conner, 1997) She finds more than one way to call Burchfield a coward, accusing him of timidity and squeamishness, and saying that he ‘recoil[s] from the very idea of a usage manual’ (O’Conner, 1997). The novelist John Updike (1996) writes that ‘Burchfield throws up his hands’ at usage that ‘Fowler called […] “an ugly recent development” and argued against’, and that Burchfield ‘takes cover behind another permissive, precedent-rich authority, “Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage”’, which reveals another theme in the language of the reviews: permissiveness.

Permissiveness In several negative reviews, Burchfield is viewed as more permissive than Fowler. The term permissive has acquired a pejorative sense: it is used, for instance, to criticise linguists’ attitudes towards language (see Cameron, 1995: 86, 90, 102). As Finegan (2001, 408) puts it, ‘[f]or the twentiethcentury critics, moral turpitude had become permissiveness’, and we find this made explicit in the reviews. Indeed, permissiveness is John Simon’s main problem with Burchfield (see ‘Evaluations of NFMEU’ above). The same idea is presented through use of the word tolerant, as in (7). (7) In a radical revision of the standard reference book, its new editor Robert Burchfield is tolerant about modern slang forms of grammar and usage which his predecessors would have denounced as wrong or sloppy. (Ezard, 1996) Ezard implies that being tolerant of ‘modern slang forms’, something generally considered to be bad, is not a normal attitude within the context of usage advice. Indeed, it is a radical stance, according to Ezard, another term used to describe Burchfield’s approach. (8) Offering itself as the “third edition” of Fowler’s original […] it is no such thing, being a radical reinterpretation that pays lip service to Fowler but borrows very little from him. (Boland, 1997)

Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 193

The evaluation illustrated by (8) takes us to the next theme in the reviews: that NFMEU cannot and should not properly be considered a new edition of MEU, but that Burchfield is merely trading on the name ‘Fowler’.

Trading on Fowler’s name Fowler’s name is another recurring collocation, revealing another theme. Reviewers paint a picture in which Burchfield is seen to trade on Fowler’s name, both personally and metonymically usurping Fowler’s status and authority, as in (9) and (10). (9) I am doubtful of its right to call itself an edition of Fowler’s book. (Dummett, 1996) (10) Books like ‘The New Fowler’s’ are plentiful now, but should not be called Fowler’s. (Wensberg, 1996) This is also where the coordinator but often shows up. Morton (1997: 115) already pointed towards this rhetoric of usurpation in his first review of NFMEU, noting that ‘negative reviewers questioned whether the new work should carry Fowler’s name since so little of his flavor remains’. Some reviewers suggested that Burchfield used Fowler’s name to boost the book’s sales, as in (11) and (12). (11) As for the question: Why didn’t Burchfield do his own book on usage instead of rewriting Fowler? […] Perhaps the answer has to do with the value of the name. (Gloin, 1997) (12) I resent Burchfield trading on Fowler’s name. Why didn’t he call it ‘Burchfield’s Modern English Grammar’ and see how many he’d sell? (Rooney, 1997) Rooney, in (12), raises an interesting point, though he doesn’t make a fair comparison since the market for usage guides had not nearly been as competitive for Fowler as it was for Burchfield. A quick search of WorldCat reveals that whereas in 1926 there was only Fowler’s MEU, in 1996 alone, at least 15 usage guides were published (or reissued) besides NFMEU.7 One reviewer presents the same information but arrives at a completely opposite interpretation, saying that NFMEU ‘is Fowler’s only by professional courtesy’ of Burchfield (Devine, 1997). The phrase Fowler’s name occurs in one positive review (Sheidlower, 1996). Although the author mentions Burchfield’s use of Fowler’s name, he evaluates NFMEU as a necessary update of MEU, which brings us to yet another theme.

194

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Replacing or updating Fowler? Some reviews depict NFMEU as being indeed a new version of the book and a necessary update of MEU. The most common argument is that Fowler is outdated, as in (13), and that NFMEU better represents the varieties of English of the late 20th century, as in (14). (13) After 70 years, crusty old Fowler, the stern but flexible arbiter of the use of English, must step aside. (Wilkinson, 1996) (14) NF is also a more useful reference than its predecessors because it covers the waterfront of today’s Englishes, in times when developments in English increasingly take place outside Britain. (Bilney, 1997) It is also argued that Burchfield’s methodology is superior to Fowler’s, as in (15) (see also the section ‘Descriptive versus prescriptive’), or that NFMEU better represents the genre of the usage guide than the original MEU because of this, as in (16). (15) It’s less personal than Fowler’s was and is much more scholarly, more clearly based on marshaled evidence, and, in general, written more objectively. (Morton, 1998: 322) (16) Justly, Mr Burchfield hopes the 1926 Fowler will long remain in print. But his own book has a far stronger claim to be called a ‘dictionary of usage’ than Fowler had. (Economist, 1997) Many of the positive reviews thus see NFMEU as a useful, necessary and timely replacement or update of Fowler’s.

No comparison There are not many reviews that do not exclusively compare Burchfield with Fowler: only two of them state explicitly that the two works cannot and should not be compared; see (17) and (18). (17) Perhaps, however, all this is to do no more than say that Burchfield is not Fowler, and does not try to be. (Lanchester, 1997) (18) In many important ways, Burchfield’s MEU is of course no longer ‘Fowler’ in this quintessential sense – nor was it intended to be. (Mugglestone, 1997: 443) Despite having a section called ‘Comparing Burchfield and Fowler’, Morton’s (1997) review discusses NFMEU mostly on its own merits. Only a few other reviews do so as well, as in (19) and (20).

Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 195

(19) In general, the harder or more abstruse the point, the better Burchfield is; the grammatical discussions in his book, of restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, say, or of uses of the apostrophe, are exemplary. (Lanchester, 1997) (20) Burchfield is generally insensitive to the use of ‘politically correct’ language, a subject of great importance in American discourse. (Sheidlower, 1996) Insensitive to such usage though Burchfield may have been, he was not unaware of developments that had taken place in society since Fowler’s day, especially those that should affect linguistic choices. In the Preface, he writes that ‘[p]olitical correctness gets its full share of attention, as do linguistic aspects of the powerful feminist movement in the twentieth century’ (Burchfield, 1996: xi−xii). In another review, written by a linguist and quoted in (21), Burchfield is actually commended on this: (21) New cultural forces and socio-linguistic sensibilities are well in evidence, and Fowler’s prescriptive misogyny […] is displaced by a new awareness of the politics of gender and its potential controversies in terms of usage. (Mugglestone, 1997: 438) Perhaps more than anything this is a difference in perception by American and British reviewers and by the different types of publications. In general, the reviews in academic journals are the most likely to evaluate NFMEU independently of MEU rather than in comparison with it.

English usage The phrase English usage is used to establish some of the themes already discussed above, and it mostly occurs in the corpus in references to usage guides, whether by title or otherwise. Sometimes, however, it does not, and in such instances the phrase mostly occurs in positive and neutral reviews, and mostly in objective discussions about aspects of usage guide writing, as in (22). (22) A lexicographer is interested in the evidence, and only then perhaps in popular linguistic prejudice. English usage is the peculiar possession of all who write it, and nobody likes being shown that their (his/her?) dearest ‘rules’ and prejudices are built on foundations of painted smoke. (Howard, 1996) One review takes a historical angle into account when he writes that ‘[m]any changes have occurred in English usage over the last 70 years, and these are now taken account of in this new third edition.’

196

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

(M2 Presswire, 1996); another one comments more generally on the scope of a usage guide: (23) A guide to English usage today ought to represent the language of the late 20th century [...] And it ought to take account of American English and the English spoken in Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, and elsewhere in the world. (Morton, 1997). At the same time, Burchfield’s ‘claim’ on the jacket of NFMEU as to the new edition’s authority on English usage drew some negative attention, as in (24). (24) If Burchfield didn’t like what Fowler wrote, he should have started from scratch and written his own book with his own name on it to see whether ‘Burchfield’ ever became synonymous with English usage as ‘Fowler’ has. (Rooney, 1997) Boland (1997), in yet another review, voices a popular opinion of language, though rather less directly related to NFMEU, saying that ‘English usage really is going to the dogs’.

Inviting Criticism? Rewriting Fowler was bound to antagonise people, considering the iconic status of the book and that of its author (see also Brewer, 2005: 271). Indeed, some of the strongly negative reviews of NFMEU can be seen as reactions to what was seen as a form of sacrilege, since MEU was considered a bible of English usage, both by those who approved of NFMEU and those who did not.8 Consequently, ‘[i]n changing it, the editor-rewriter invites the wrath of all who like their grammatical scripture pristine’, as Safire (1996) put it. One reviewer wrote: ‘Burchfield has rewritten “Modern English Usage” […] which I find infuriating’, because MEU ‘is one of the great books ever written’, referring to the book as ‘the English language bible’ and claiming that ‘Burchfield has ruined the original’ (Rooney, 1997). Another wrote that ‘to use Fowler’s name in the title of this book is to mislead the purchaser’ (Clements, 1997). It is worthwhile looking at the Preface to NFMEU: did specific comments on Fowler and MEU precipitate some of the criticism aimed at Burchfield? The clearest link between the reviews and the Preface is also the longest recurring phrase in the entire corpus, in which Burchfield (1996: xi) describes MEU as ‘an enduring monument to all that was linguistically acceptable in the standard English of the southern counties of England in the first quarter of the twentieth century’. Occurring in 9 out of the 33

Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 197

reviews in the corpus, it is cited more or less equally often in positive and negative ones. With regard to the comparison with Fowler, perhaps Burchfield did not mention Fowler positively enough in the eyes of the reviewers. After calling him ‘a legendary figure’ in the opening sentence, he describes Fowler as ‘typical’, and ‘writing in virtual seclusion’ and in ‘isolation [...] from the mainstream of the linguistic scholarship of his day’ (Burchfield, 1996: vii). Burchfield (1996: xi), writing that ‘Fowler’s name remains on the title-page, even though his book has been largely rewritten in this third edition’, may have been responsible for the attacks discussed in the section ‘Permissiveness’. The comment about MEU being a ‘fossil’ (Burchfield, 1996: xi), though referring to MEU rather than Fowler himself, did not go down well either. The sentence ‘The acknowledged authority on English usage’ on the book’s jacket drew equally strong opinions. It was cited only by John Simon and Patricia O’Conner, but these two writers – both of them American – are among the most strongly negative reviewers. They chose to focus on this particular phrase despite the fact that it was most likely the publisher and not the author who put it there. Their attitudes are not surprising, however: Simon had already dedicated an entire book to his perceived decline of the English language (Simon, 1980), and O’Conner wrote her own usage guide (O’Conner, 1998). The focus on Burchfield as a descriptivist (see also the section ‘Descriptive versus prescriptive’) may also have been a reaction to his statement in the Preface that when preparing NFMEU he preferred ‘an historical approach to English usage to one that is limitedly descriptive’ (Burchfield, 1996: xi). Since he does not mention prescriptivism at all, it might be concluded that Burchfield was indeed exclusively descriptive, or, indeed, that he had attempted to be so.

Conclusions The above investigation of the most frequent keywords in my corpus of reviews of Burchfield’s edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage revealed several themes in the discussion of the work. What connects the themes discussed here is that in the majority of cases the evaluation of NFMEU seems to be almost entirely based on a comparison with Fowler’s MEU – or Gowers’s edition published in 1965 – rather than on the new edition’s own merits or shortcomings. The comparison of Burchfield with Fowler, both literally and metonymically, is strongly foregrounded in the discourse. In the section ‘Comparing Burchfield and Fowler’, I discussed a range of themes that are all related to each other: descriptiveness versus prescriptiveness, passivity, permissiveness, trading on Fowler’s name and

198

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

the need for an update of Fowler. What made these themes emerge are the different ideas and goals of linguists and non-linguists towards language and usage, and different attitudes towards the same attributes of Burchfield and Fowler. Linguists may be ‘permissive’, ‘cowardly’, yet also ‘radical’ in their approach to usage, but as a prescriptivist, Fowler is decisive and ‘has the music’ (Clements, 1997). Burchfield is alternatively seen as usurping Fowler’s status or as reviving an outdated institution. Is there a relationship between the rhetoric used by the reviewers and the publications in which the reviews appeared? The few reviews in academic journals seem to be predominantly positive about the descriptive nature of the book, which is to be expected. But generally it seems that it cannot be readily predicted whether the review will be positive or negative from the political or editorial stance of the publication in which it occurs. For instance, both The New Yorker and The Guardian, progressive and liberal-centrist, respectively, published negative reviews, the latter quoting conservative sources in support of the arguments presented. And the liberal New York Times published one of the most negative reviews of NFMEU. Conversely, a positive review occurred in the conservative Sydney Morning Herald. As for the question as to what the language of the reviews of NFMEU tells us about popular ideas of English usage, this is actually not as much as might have been hoped for. The reviews say more about popular ideas as to who are setting the norms, and what these norm-setters’ values are or should be, than they do about the norms themselves. Looking at the reviews of NFMEU as the manifestation of a public discourse on language and normativism, it seems that in general this discourse focuses less on content and more on the relationship between the different editions, emphasising differences rather than similarities. This only serves to further a simplistic two-sided public debate rather than an informed and open discussion about norms and linguistic standards. This is not a new insight, since it has already been noticed in contemporary linguistic literature (Tannen, 1998: 10) with regard to belligerent and divisive attitudes in the media and in education, but it is no great leap from these to discussions about language, which abound in the press. This may be illustrative of a culture in which reviewers felt forced to either condemn or defend MEU’s new edition, according to their beliefs about the role of usage guides and especially the legacy of MEU as a bible of English usage and of Henry Fowler as an institution and a figurehead of their values regarding correctness. As a result, limited space seems to have been left for a sober and impartial evaluation of NFMEU. This may also have been due to the iconic status of the work reviewed, which drew the focus of the reviewers to differences between the two incarnations rather than to broader issues of usage.

Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 199

Postscript At the time of finishing this chapter, a fourth edition of Fowler had just been published (Butterfield, 2015). I wonder what it will be compared to mostly in the media, Fowler or Burchfield, and how. The Economist (1997) wondered whether NFMEU would be called ‘Burchfield’ by ‘the publisher of its latest revision’ in 2097. They had to wait only 18 years rather than a century for the answer, which is ‘No’. Fowler is still the name. Some of the potential criticism of the kind discussed in this chapter may, however, have been pre-empted this time: the publisher removed the word ‘new’ from the title.

Notes (1)

The research for this chapter was done in the context of the project Bridging the Unbridgeable: Linguists, Prescriptivists and the General Public directed by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Leiden University Centre for Linguistics) and funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). (2) The BNC has 100 million words and the ANC has 14 million. Access to the corpora is restricted but word lists for both are available from the WordSmith Tools website http://www.lexically.net. (3) Morton (1997: 114) mentions two additional reviews in British newspapers published in November 1996, which according to him were positive. I have not been able to find them and they have therefore not been part of the analyses in this chapter. Obviously, this changes the statistics, showing newspapers as less negative compared to the other two genres, and British reviews as even more positive compared to those from elsewhere. However, the results of the main analysis stand. (4) With W3, Morton refers to the controversial third edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, published in 1961. (5) For convenience sake, I also use the names Fowler and Burchfield to refer to the authors themselves as well as to their usage guides. Where the work needs to be separated from the person, I will use the relevant titles. (6) Burchfield’s descriptive approach, as well as his prescriptive tendencies in the application of usage labels in the OED are discussed in detail in Brewer (2005). (7) I searched www.worldcat.org for books in English with the words ‘English’ and ‘usage’ in the title or subtitle, published in 1926 and 1996, respectively. (8) Six reviews use the word ‘bible’ to describe MEU: M2 Presswire (1996), Mugglestone (1997), Rooney (1997), Safire (1996), Sheidlower (1996) and Wilkinson (1996). See also McArthur (1986) on the similarities in social status between usage handbooks and bibles.

References Beal, J.C. (2004) English in Modern Times, 1700−1945. London: Arnold. Brewer, C. (2005) Authority and personality in the Oxford English Dictionary. Transactions of the Philological Society 103 (3), 261−301. Burchfield, R.W. (1991) The Fowler brothers and the tradition of usage handbooks. In G. Leitner (ed.) English Traditional Grammars: An International Perspective (pp. 93−112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

200

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Burchfield, R.W. ([1996] 2000) The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. New York: Oxford University Press. Busse, U. and Schröder, A. (2010) How Fowler became ‘The Fowler’: An anatomy of a success story. English Today 26, 45–54. Butterfield, J. (2015) Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene: The Politics of Language. London: Routledge. Curzan, A. (2014) Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairclough, N. (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Pearson Education. Finegan, E. (2001) Usage. In J. Algeo (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language Volume VI: English in North America (pp. 358–421). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fowler, H.W. (1926) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gowers, E. (1965) Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McArthur, T. (1986) The usage industry. English Today 2 (3), 8−12. O’Conner, P.T. (1998) Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English. New York: Riverhead Books. Peters, P. (2006) English usage: Prescription and description. In B. Aarts and A. McMahon (eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics (pp. 759–780). Oxford: Blackwell. Scott, M. (2002) Picturing the key words of a very large corpus and their lexical upshots or getting at the Guardian’s view of the world. Language and Computers 42, 43–50. Scott, M. (2008) WordSmith Tools Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. Simon, J. (1980) Paradigms Lost: Reflections on Literacy and Its Decline. New York: Clarkson N. Potter. Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge. Tannen, D. (1998) The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House. Van Dijk, T.A. (2003) Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 352−371). Oxford: Blackwell.

Language in Reviews of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage 201

Appendix: Reviews of NFMEU Analysed Newspaper reviews

Barnes, J. (1996) Men of letters. The Sunday Times, 10 November. Bilney, G. (1997) Brave new word. Sydney Morning Herald, 28 June. Boland, J. (1997) English as she is misused. The Irish Times, 14 February. Clements, W. (1997) New Fowler is unfair to founder. The Globe and Mail, 18 January. Devine, F. (1997) Linguistic vigilante. The Australian, 15 March. Dummett, M. (1996) Hold fast to sound words. The Times, 21 November. Ezard, J. (1996). Fowler’s relaxes rules of English usage with new tolerance of slang. The Guardian, 2 November. Fuhrmann, M. (1996) To grammar’s house we go: Fowler’s classic on English usage gets an update. The Hamilton Spectator, 21 December. Gloin, L. (1997) Messing with the King’s own English. The Toronto Star, 8 March. Howard, P. (1996) A jubilee for writers – New Fowler’s – Day 1. The Times, 28 October. Lehmann-Haupt, C. (1996) To praise Fowler and to bury him. The New York Times, 26 December. Levy, P. (1996) A Fowler in name only. The Wall Street Journal Europe, 20 December. M2 Presswire (1996) Oxford University Press: The established bible of English usage says split infinitives are allowed! M2 Presswire, 6 November. McIntyre, J.E. (1997) New ‘Fowler’ a bit condescending. Denver Post, 19 January. O’Conner, P.T. (1997) Running afoul of Fowler. The New York Times, 16 February. Rooney, A. (1997) Pardon my English. Buffalo Evening News, 4 February. Safire, W. (1996) The new Fowler’s. The New York Times, 1 December. Stephens, T. (1997) Words ain’t necessarily so. Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January. Wensberg, E. (1996) Watching the words go by. The Asian Wall Street Journal, 10 December. Wilkinson, M. (1996) To boldly follow Fowler. Financial Times, 30 October.

Magazine reviews

Economist (1997) Burchfield’s modern English usage. The Economist, 1 February. Enright, D.J. (1997) Whom will take some killing. The Times Literary Supplement, 7 February. Lanchester, J. (1997) With luck. The London Review of Books, 2 January. Sheidlower, J. (1996) Elegant variation and all that. The Atlantic Monthly, December. Simon, J. (1997) Thoroughly modern Burchfield. The New Criterion, March. Updike, J. (1996) Finer points: Why we should still care about Fowler seventy years on. The New Yorker, 23 December.

Journal reviews

Allen, R. (1997) Fowler’s new book. English Today 13, 54–55. Branford, B. (1998) R.W. Burchfield. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Lexikos 8, 310−315. Görlach, M. (1997) English World-Wide 18 (2), 304−306. Morton, H.C. (1997) Sampling and savoring Burchfield’s new Fowlerprint. Logos: Journal of the World Book Community 8 (2), 107−115. Morton, H.C. (1998) Burchfield on usage: Remaking Fowler’s classic. American Speech 73, 313−324. Munson, J. (1997) Keeping English correct. Contemporary Review 270, 1 May. Mugglestone, L.C. (1997) The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Notes and Queries 44, 437–437.

13 Which Items Need to be Standardised? Variation in the Choice of Entries in Usage Guides Mark Kaunisto

Introduction One may argue that the role of prescriptivist ideas in language standardisation processes is affected by the sheer variety of suggestions proposed. In other words, the changes proposed in prescriptive observations may be slowed down by the very lack of conformity among the views themselves as to which items we should pay attention to. This is typically a reflection of the fact that there are no clear criteria that commentators use to make observations on a particular set of items, which is also evident in English usage guides. One factor to consider in this respect is the relative frequency of the items themselves. As regards the reasons leading authors of usage guides to alert people on particular points in language use, it is possible that this factor should be made better use of, as the way in which authors focus on different linguistic items may not be entirely justifiable in terms of how prominent the items actually are in everyday language. This study looks into English usage guides, with special attention given to the question of the selection of items in their entries. It is only fairly recently that the examination of large databases of authentic texts has been involved in the compilation of reference books on language use, notable examples of which are Garner (1998) and Peters (2004). We might expect that the analysis of corpus data provides a more objective viewpoint of the issues concerning language variation and change, as well as insights into the proportions in which variation exists. Considering usage guides in general, we may ask what kinds of factors have led to the selection of entries in the first place: although the descriptions made in the entries may nowadays be allegedly based on studies of authentic data, why did the authors choose to cover those particular items? In addition, to what

202

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

203

extent do usage guides generally agree with each other as to the choice of the entries? In order to investigate the extent of (dis)agreement between usage manuals, an examination was conducted on the entries in 10 usage guides involving rival words which share the same root but have different suffixes. Although there are obviously many other kinds of entries in usage guides, items of this type are usually quite frequent, including rival pairs ending in -al/ous, -ance/ancy, -ence/ency, -ic/ical and -ive/ory. The present study looks into the entries of such words in usage guides by observing two specific suffix pairs: -ic/ical (e.g. classic/classical, historic/historical and magic/ magical) and -ive/ory (e.g. congratulative/congratulatory, derisive/derisory and investigative/investigatory), the use of which has puzzled both prescriptivists and descriptivists. I will make observations on the numbers of such entries in the usage guides and consider these against the information gleaned on the frequencies of corresponding word pairs in large electronic corpora, the 100-million-word British National Corpus (BNC) and the 450-million-word Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Although frequency data alone does not conclusively explain why different expressions are discussed in usage guides, it will be observed that there is a notable degree of variation between their choices of entries, and that with some authors individual word pairs tend to draw more attention, relatively speaking, than they would appear to deserve based on corpus evidence.

The Changing Face of English Usage Guides It is safe to say that with the aid of large corpora, proportionally fewer usage guides are based solely on the intuition of the authors than before. Of course, citing authentic examples in support of the comments as a practice itself is by no means a recent development. For example, Fowler (1926) provides illustrative quotations in his classic Dictionary of Modern English Usage, although not in a systematic fashion. Rather than relying solely on printed sources, Morris and Morris (1975) make use of the views of a panel of 136 consultants, including authors, journalists and broadcasters, and the panelists’ judgements on the acceptability of some expressions are provided in percentages or with verbatim comments from the informants. During the last 20 years or so, the use of electronic databases or corpora has been increasingly resorted to in the making of usage manuals, although the potential of these resources has not necessarily been fully embraced. Interesting cases in point are Garner’s Dictionary of Modern American Usage (1998) and its revised edition, Garner’s Modern American Usage (2003). Garner not only gives quotations that he accidentally came across in newspapers, but also ones based on searches in Nexis and Westlaw, two massive databases containing newspaper and magazine articles and legal documents. However, he points out that his goals and approach differ

204

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

strongly from those of descriptive linguists: he does not shy away from passing judgement on words and expressions that he considers illogical or unnecessary. Garner (1998: iv) describes the principles of his approach, including considerations on logicality, simplicity, usefulness, as well as usage, but the importance of the criteria in relation to each other is not evident or transparent. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (Peters, 2004), with its use of corpora as the primary basis of commentaries for the entries, tends towards a more objective approach. Most of the entries include a reference to either the BNC or the 140-million-word American English section in the Cambridge International Corpus, with observations on the proportional distribution of alternative expressions in different regional or stylistic varieties. Combined with its references to editorial style guides, dictionaries, grammar books and linguistic research articles as well as the fact that the book aims to comment on the usage in different varieties of English, Peters’ tone is notably descriptive rather than prescriptive. In addition to methodological developments, another significant factor influencing the contents of usage guides is the changing nature of language itself. Some expressions which were previously condemned may have gained more acceptance with time, while novel uses are observed as being non-standard. How such changes are reflected in the entries in usage guides is uncertain, as some authors may have more conservative views than others. Chapman (2009, 2010) talks about a ‘canon’ of rules, comprising a set of prescriptions with such a frequency in usage guides that their inclusion can almost be regarded as having been governed by tradition (cf. Peters & Young, 1997: 317). Indeed, the example set by earlier works may play a strong role in deciding whether an item is given an entry in a new one, and the prefaces of usage guides often do not hesitate to observe the legacy of e.g. Fowler (1926), Bernstein (1965) and Follett (1966). But again, it is hard to determine the exact significance of earlier models. In some instances, it may be that comments on usages now prevalent and accepted may keep on appearing in new usage guides not because the authors stubbornly refuse to accept them, but because of their long history in the discourse of ‘proper use of language’. For example, the fact that it is not unlikely for a modern speaker to come across a reference to split infinitives in a 20th-century book or film may itself be considered reason enough to include an entry on the issue in a new usage guide. Chapman (2009, 2010) has conducted studies in which he has compared particular entries in English usage guides. In Chapman’s (2009) study of 11 works published between 1926 and 2004, attention is paid to obsolete entries, ones which no longer occur in newer works. Chapman (2010), on the other hand, analyses entries which only made a single appearance in a group of 15 usage guides. Although studies of this type are challenging because the guides vary as regards the linguistic varieties

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

205

covered and the total number of entries, they provide an opportunity to critically contemplate the aims and practices in putting the works together and to see how they compare with each other. One question worth asking is whether the inclusion of any particular entry can be regarded as sufficiently justified. For example, as regards the desire to establish a semantic differentiation between alternative expressions, Chapman (2010: 151) observes that ‘just because a distinction can be made does not mean that a distinction should be made’. Similarly, it would seem reasonable to assume that some features which can be prescribed are simply more marginal than others, and thus less essential or deserving of inclusion in a usage guide. From this perspective, it may be helpful to examine the relative frequencies of prescribed items in corpora representing general language use. A study of this nature, one that compares the selections of a set of entries in different usage guides and views them against corpus frequencies, is described in the next section.

Words Ending in -ic/ical and -ive/ory in Usage Guides and Corpora The reasons for giving a particular item of language use a separate entry in a usage guide may be manifold, and it is unlikely that all authors consider such reasons in a similar fashion. To examine how usage guides compare with each other against corpus data, the entries for words ending in -ic/ical and -ive/ory were searched for in 10 usage guides, while the frequencies of word pairs with these affixes were recorded as well. This allows us to assess if the books include entries on those word pairs which, based on corpus evidence, appear to be the most commonly used pairs showing variation or potential for confusion. Recent years have shown a growing number of corpus-based studies on rival suffix pairs: adjective pairs ending in -ic/ical and -ive/ory have been studied, for example, in Kaunisto (2007, 2009). In the case of some word pairs, the two forms today show clear semantic differentiation, as with economic (‘having to do with economics or the economy’)/economical (‘sparing, thrifty’) and derisive (‘expressing derision’)/derisory (‘laughable, worthy of derision’). There are also instances without a readily perceivable difference in meaning between the two forms. For example, the uses of pedagogic/pedagogical or discriminative/discriminatory do not suggest clear signs of differentiation either semantically or with regard to the contexts in which the rival forms are used. In such instances, one of the forms usually occurs more often than the other. As noted in Kaunisto (2007, 2009), the suffixes themselves have similar meanings: -ic, -ical, -ive and -ory all have the basic meaning of ‘relating or pertaining to’ (-ive and -ory also have the meaning of ‘tending to’), and any semantic patterns and

206

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

tendencies in the use of the words with these endings are mostly the result of developments after their coinage.

The usage guides examined The notes on rival words of this type in usage guides tend to either highlight the semantic differences between the two forms or recommend avoiding the less frequent item. But even if the goal is to discourage the use of ‘needless variants’, as typically expressed by Garner, one would expect to encounter the less frequent variant with some reasonable frequency in actual use so that a separate comment of its needlessness is warranted. The entries were studied in 10 usage guides: Fowler (1926), Bernstein (1965), Morris and Morris (1975), Crystal (1991), Howard (1993), Burchfield (1996), Davidson (2001), Garner (2003), Peters (2004) and Brians (2009). The focus was on usage guides published in the last two decades, but earlier works were also included in the study in order to examine whether they served as models for the latter ones as regards the choice of entries. It must be noted that comparing these books is not a straightforward issue: some of them concentrate specifically on one regional variety of English (Davidson; Garner), some are prominently prescriptive (Garner) and some are descriptive (Peters). The books examined also differ as regards their target audiences and their overall style or tone, ranging from more solemn and serious works with frequency data, examples and critical discussion to ones which often garnish their observations with humorous quips, such as Brians (2009). Another important point is the number of entries: Garner contains over 9000 entries, Fowler over 6000 and Peters over 4000, whereas Crystal is the smallest, with 376 entries in 127 pages. Bearing such differences in mind, it is interesting to observe how many and exactly which words in -ic/ical and -ive/ory are given their own entries in the books. The usage guides included entries for 81 different pairs ending in -ic/ical and 56 in -ive/ory (for tables containing the full lists of entries of the words examined, see Appendices A and B). The word pairs most often found were classic/classical (with separate entries in all 10 books examined), historic/ historical (likewise 10/10), economic/economical (8/10), comic/comical (7/10), derisive/derisory (7/10) and electric/electrical (6/10). Entries for another five pairs were found in five books (geographic/geographical, geometric/geometrical, ironic/ironical, periodic/periodical and rhythmic/rhythmical), while entries for other pairs were found less frequently. In fact, the total number of entries of pairs in -ic/ical and -ive/ory show notable differences between the books, as can be observed in Table 13.1 with an accompanying visual graph. As the results in this table show, Garner (2003) stands out from the other books in being the only one with more entries for words ending in -ive/ory than for those in -ic/ical. The difference is striking because with the other books the reverse is found. Even the smaller volumes have more entries for

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

207

Table 13.1 The number of entries of pairs in -ic/ical and -ive/ory in the usage guides examined

pairs in -ic/ical

pairs in -ic/ical

49

2

5

5

16

45

7

40

39

3

pairs in -ive/ory

2

0

1

0

1

2

1

54

3

0

unique entries in -ic/ical

4

0

0

0

0

1

1

14

5

0

unique entries in -ive/ory

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

52

2

0

Fowler (1926)

Bernstein (1965)

Morris and Morris (1975)

Crystal (1991)

Howard (1993)

Burchfield (1996)

Davidson (2001)

Garner (2003)

Peters (2004)

Brians (2009)

pairs in -ive/ory

pairs in -ic/ical than for those in -ive/ory – and some books have no entries for word pairs in -ive/ory at all. Considering the fact that Garner (2003) has the largest number of entries overall, it is perhaps not surprising that it has the highest number of unique entries, but again it is noteworthy that almost all pairs in -ive/ory treated by Garner are left untreated by the others. One reason why the results for Garner differ so greatly from the rest can be seen in his entries on the -ive/ory adjectives themselves, as most of them are words characteristically found in legal discourse, such as capitulative/ capitulatory, inculpative/inculpatory, injunctive/injunctory, prosecutive/prosecutory and recriminative/recriminatory. Given Garner’s own interest in language use in legal contexts – he has published books specifically on the subject – as well as the fact that legal documents feature prominently in the databases he used, it is possible that the selection of items that he comments on does not entirely represent patterns in general language use.

Corpus data The word pairs ending in -ic/ical and -ive/ory were searched for in two corpora, the BNC and the COCA, both hosted at Mark Davies’ website (http://corpus.byu.edu). List searches were conducted with search strings

208

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Table 13.2 Rival pairs ending in -ic/ical and -ive/ory in BNC and COCA (pmw)

rival pairs in -ic/ical rival pairs in -ive/ory

BNC

COCA

246 (2.46 pmw) 69 (0.69 pmw)

549 (1.22 pmw) 134 (0.30 pmw)

*ic, *ical, *ive and *ory, and the results were examined to find instances of rival words sharing the same base. It is worth noting that in some instances a word in -ic or -ical may also function as a noun (e.g. comic and periodical), and the question of word class may even be the central point of an entry in the usage guides. For this reason, whether the words were actually used as adjectives or nouns was not taken into account in the corpus analysis. In both corpora, the numbers of rival words in -ic/ical were greater than those in -ive/ory. Because the corpora are of different sizes, the numbers of rival pairs were normalised per million words (pmw). As can be seen in Table 13.2, in terms of normalised frequencies, more rival pairs with both patterns were found in the BNC. These figures include, of course, several pairs where both items had low frequencies (e.g. both regurgitive and regurgitory had one occurrence in COCA). Such pairs are arguably marginal, and thus not among the words one would expect to find treated in usage guides. The same applies to pairs with a clear difference between the frequencies of the two forms: for example, COCA includes 828 instances of cryptic and only one of cryptical, and 1795 instances of speculative while speculatory occurs only twice. With such low frequencies of the rarer item, rivalry between the two forms is not much of an issue with pairs like these. Corpus frequencies demonstrate at least a reasonable degree of variation or competition between the two forms of these word pairs. In order to assess how well the usage guides examined these, word pairs were searched for of which the less frequent member had at least a frequency of 0.5 hits pmw. The results are presented in Table 13.3. Looking into the numbers of rival pairs with this criterion, we can again observe that in both corpora there are more rival pairs ending in -ic/ical than those ending in -ive/ ory. More variation between pairs in -ive/ory was found in British English with seven rival pairs (compulsive/compulsory, derisive/derisory, innovative/ innovatory, participative/participatory, refractive/refractory, secretive/secretory and transitive/transitory). In COCA, only one pair (compulsive/compulsory) met the frequency criterion; in other words, most of the 134 rival forms in -ive/ory in COCA were either low-frequency items, or the variation between the forms was not very prominent as far as word frequency is concerned. The rival -ic/ical words are listed in Appendix C. Having sorted out those rival pairs in -ic/ical and -ive/ory which demonstrate variation with a certain degree of prominence in the lexicon,

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

209

Table 13.3 Rival word pairs in -ic/ical and -ive/ory in BNC and COCA (frequency of the rarer item being at least 0.5 pmw) BNC

COCA

54 7

53 1

rival pairs in -ic/ical rival pairs in -ive/ory

we can examine how many of the entries in the usage guides belong to this category. In other words, what proportion of their entries match the group of items which have demonstrably higher frequencies? When we consider the results, it must be emphasised that the frequency of 0.5 instances pmw is only an arbitrary figure, chosen solely for the purpose of comparing the books against each other; it is not implied here that only words with this minimum frequency are worthy of attention in a usage guide. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 13.4, which includes the numbers of those usage guide entries found among the ‘higher-frequency’ pairs in the two corpora separately. The table also includes the pertinent information from Tables 13.1 and 13.3 (the figures within parentheses), allowing us to observe how many pairs out of the total number of their entries in -ic/ical or -ive/ory were actual high-frequency items. For example, out of the total of 49 -ic/ical pairs listed in Fowler (1926), 23 were found in the BNC list of high-frequency pairs, while 20 pairs from Fowler were found in the corresponding list from COCA. Table 13.4 shows that, as

Fowler (1926)

Bernstein (1965)

Morris and Morris (1975)

Crystal (1991)

Howard (1993)

Burchfield (1996)

Davidson (2001)

Garner (2003)

Peters (2004)

Brians (2009)

Table 13.4 Entries of the more prominent rival pairs in -ic/ical and -ive/ory in the usage guides examined

-ic/ical pairs

(49)

(2)

(5)

(5)

(16)

(45)

(7)

(40)

(39)

(3)

BNC list (54)

23

2

5

5

12

24

6

16

22

3

COCA list (53)

20

2

3

5

10

18

5

15

18

3

-ive/ory pairs

(2)

(0)

(1)

(0)

(1)

(2)

(1)

(54)

(3)

(0)

BNC list (7)

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

4

1

0

COCA list (1)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

210

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

regards words ending in -ic/ical, the usage guides that have relatively few entries of this type focus more or less exclusively on ones which, according to corpus evidence, are also the most prominent. For example, Crystal (1991) provides entries on classic/classical, comic/comical, economic/economical, electric/electrical and historic/historical – all relatively high-frequency pairs in both BNC and COCA. Of the more voluminous books, an interesting observation can be made concerning Fowler (1926) and Burchfield (1996), which is a revised edition of Fowler. Burchfield (1996) has slightly fewer entries of -ic/ical words than Fowler (1926), and it appears that the items Burchfield left out are nowadays less prominent, at least in the British English data. Of all the entries in -ic/ical listed by Garner (2003), a notably low proportion of them was also found among the frequently occurring pairs in the corpora. This can be seen to reflect the sheer scope and volume of Garner’s work: with its high total number of entries, Garner also focuses on less frequent items than the others. At the same time, the book may be missing out on other more prominent items. For example, it can be questioned why Garner fails to provide entries for botanic/botanical or magic/ magical, which are both fairly frequent in the corpora (with frequencies of 0.9 and 4.0 pmw for botanic and botanical, and 39.2 and 9.9 pmw for magic and magical in COCA). The results for words ending in -ive/ory are generally less striking, as most of the usage guides had entries for only one or two pairs, if any (usually derisive/derisory and elusive/illusive/illusory). The one exception here, once again, is Garner (2003) with its 54 entries, most of which are relatively rare in the corpora: the less frequent member of all the pairs had a frequency below 0.5 pmw in COCA. Based on the corpus data, it can be said that Garner’s desire to weed out what he sees as unnecessary variants manifests itself clearly with word pairs in -ive/ory, apparently without regard to whether or not this reflects actual usage.

Discussion The usage guides analysed were shown to vary as to the number of entries for word pairs ending in -ic/ical and -ive/ory. An examination of the entries and the most prominent word pairs in the corpora showed that the books with fairly low numbers of entries of such words usually focused on items which are also among the most frequently occurring pairs in the corpus data. In usage guides with a greater numbers of entries, including Fowler (1926), Burchfield (1996), Garner (2003) and Peters (2004), the selection of the entries did not perfectly match the items most prominent in the corpora. Fowler’s comments were obviously based on his observations on early 20th-century English, so his comments may therefore no longer be relevant today. For example, the main point in some of his entries

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

211

(e.g. tragic/tragical) is that one of the rival forms is becoming obsolete, and the corpus data only confirms these observations. Garner (2003) and Peters (2004), both published in the 2000s, represent the opposite ends of the prescriptive versus descriptive scale. As regards the correspondence between the entries and the corpus data, in Peters (2004) a greater proportion of the entries were also higher-frequency items in the corpora. Garner (2003) appears to draw attention to more marginal pairs while perhaps neglecting to observe more frequent items. Particularly in the case of words ending in -ive/ory, his selection of entries does not correlate with corpus data. As noted above, one reason for this may be that the databases Garner consulted do not reflect general language use. On the other hand, although Peters used corpora extensively, it is not known whether corpus frequency data was used specifically to determine the selection of the entries. We may ask then whether the selection of usage items could (or should) be based solely on corpus data, and how feasible such a process would be in the compilation of usage guides. Again, the issue is far from straightforward. Representative data on different regional varieties of English or even on English spoken or written as a foreign language obviously offer numerous opportunities for authors of usage guides. However, analysis of corpus data should be both qualitative as well as quantitative; observing frequencies alone may even be misleading in some cases. For example, because the two forms today represent different word classes, there seems to be little need for an entry on items like logic/logical or critic/critical, although they feature prominently in corpora. One needs to distinguish between items which are potentially confusable and those where confusion is actually attested, although in some instances the mere potential for confusion may be sufficient for them to merit separate entries in a usage guide. One interesting example is the adjective pair compulsive/compulsory. Both words are fairly numerous in the corpora (2.5 and 17.4 pmw in the BNC and 2.6 and 2.5 pmw in COCA). However, none of the books examined have an entry for the pair, most likely because of the understanding that the words are rarely confused, compulsive having the sense of ‘characterised by obsessive behaviour or compulsion’ and compulsory meaning ‘mandatory’. It is nevertheless possible to find instances where one word is used in the sense of the other, as in the following examples (italics added): Compulsive voting may seem like an impingement of freedoms, but it is only a small inconvenience compared with other duties of citizenship. (Michael Kennedy, Compulsory Voting is Needed Now, 30 September 2010) Another OCD song. ‘I am on the chopping block, stopping off my chopping thoughts’ is clearly about compulsory thinking and overanalyzing, whereas ‘we know we love extremes. Getting to grips

212

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

with the ups and downs cause there is nothing in between’ are clear references to the extreme emotions and moodswings of OCD sufferers. (The Back of Love Lyric Meaning – Echo and the Bunnymen Meanings) The first example was found with a Google search, and the latter by searching for compulsory in Mark Davies’s Corpus of Global Web-based English, which includes other instances of the non-standard use of compulsive and compulsory in varieties of English as a second language (e.g. India and Hong Kong). On the other hand, today people rarely confuse the uses of excellence/excellency, yet entries for the pair can be found in usage guides. One explanation for the different treatment of these pairs is the fact that with excellence/excellency, the differentiation established itself over a long period of time (in earlier centuries, they were used in free variation), whereas the 20th-century sense of ‘characterised by compulsion’ was originally applied within the field of psychology to compulsive, not to compulsory, and the two forms were never in the past used in free variation in general use. Even so, if the interests of language learners are to be taken into consideration in usage guides, an entry even for compulsive/compulsory might be justified both in light of the possibility of confusion as well as the relative frequencies of the two words overall.

Conclusion Based on the results observed in the section ‘Words Ending in -ic/ical and -ive/ory in Usage Guides and Corpora’, it can be said that comparing usage guide entries with corpus data provides us with interesting insights into the characteristics of usage guides, some of which appear problematic and challenging. The results show that the books differ considerably in their selection of entries, and that the differences do not necessarily directly reflect the total number of entries. It is possible that decisions to include particular items in usage guides are to some extent due to the authors’ subjective views on the importance of the items. There are obviously several factors to consider when determining which items deserve separate entries in usage guides, and the present study looks into one of them, the relative frequencies of the items in actual use. Although it is difficult to estimate the significance of relative frequencies – and there are undoubtedly matters relating to language use where the mere observation of frequencies in corpora is not applicable or informative – we would expect the authors of usage guides to pay more attention to items which the prospective readers are most likely to encounter. All this does not mean to suggest that intuition or prescriptive views should have no place in the process of writing a usage guide. However, it can be argued that recommendations on usage do not need to be associated with bold, impassioned pedantry, but that they can conceivably be based

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

213

on a careful, unbiased study of authentic data. The set of criteria leading to recommendations needs to be clear and transparent (see e.g. Chapman [2010: 146−148] on the arbitrariness of some of the criteria on which usage notes are based). Developing and defining the criteria may be a complex task if, together with qualitative and quantitative analyses of relevant corpus data, one wants to include factors such as historical as well as presentday considerations, regional or stylistic variation and the perspective of language learners. Considering the variety of aims and target audiences of usage guides, it is not at all certain – perhaps even unlikely – that usage guides will develop so that the criteria used in their compilation will be accepted and applied in a uniform fashion. In the present chapter, I have proposed the idea of examining and comparing usage guides and their selection of entries by observing frequency information of usage items in linguistic corpora. It can be said that usage guides clearly should be critically assessed and examined, and that based on the survey of 10 usage guides, this type of analysis can be used to observe differences between works in this genre. Obviously, by paying attention to entries of words in -ic/ical and -ive/ory, I was able to cover only a fraction of the entries in usage guides. Different types of entries may not even lend themselves equally well to the type of analysis performed here. In the future, the scope of the study could be extended not only to cover a larger number of near synonyms, but also to observe the possibility of examining other kinds of issues discussed in usage guides.

References The Back of Love Lyric Meaning – Echo and the Bunnymen Meanings. See http://www. songmeanings.net/songs/view/56149 (accessed February 2014). Bernstein, T.M. (1965) The Careful Writer – A Modern Guide to English Usage. New York: Atheneum. BNC: British National Corpus. See http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/, accessed through http://corpus.byu.edu (last accessed February 2014). Brians, P. (2009) Common Errors in English Usage (2nd edn). Wilsonville, OR: William, James & Co. Burchfield, R.W. (ed.) (1996) The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage (3rd edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chapman, D. (2009) Lost battles and the wrong end of the canon: Attrition among usage prescriptions. Conference paper presented at the Studies in the History of the English Language 6, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 30 April 2009. Chapman, D. (2010) Bad ideas in the history of English usage. In A.M. Hamilton-Brehm and R.A. Cloutier (eds) Topics in English Linguistics 68: Studies in the History of the English Language V – Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon: Contemporary Approaches (pp. 141−155). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English. See http://corpus.byu.edu (last accessed February 2014). Compulsory Voting is Needed Now, 30 September 2010. See http://voices.yahoo.com/ compulsory-voting-is-needed-now-6885324.html (accessed February 2014). Crystal, D. (1991) Making Sense of English Usage. Edinburgh: Chambers.

214

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Davidson, M. (2001) Watchwords: A Dictionary of What’s Right, Wrong & Risky in Today’s American English Usage. South Pasadena, CA: Harrison Publishing. Follett, W. 1966. Modern American Usage: A Guide. New York: Hill & Wang. Fowler, H.W. (1926) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Garner, B.A. (1998) A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. New York: Oxford University Press. Garner, B.A. (2003) Garner’s Modern American Usage. New York: Oxford University Press. Howard, G. (1993) The Good English Guide. English Usage in the 1990s. London: Macmillan. Kaunisto, M. (2007) Variation and Change in the Lexicon: A Study of English Adjective Pairs Ending in -ic and -ical. Language and Computers Series. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Kaunisto, M. (2009) Rivalry between English adjectives in -ive and -ory. In R. McConchie, A. Honkapohja and J. Tyrkkö (eds) Proceedings of the HEL-LEX2 Conference (pp. 74–87). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Morris, W. and Morris, M. (1975) Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage. New York: Harper & Row. Peters, P. (2004) The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters, P. and Young, W. (1997) English grammar and the lexicography of usage. Journal of English Linguistics 25, 315–331.

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

215

alphabetic(al)

Brians (2009)

x

analytic(al)

x

x

antithetic(al)

x

x

botanic(al)

x

casuistic(al)

x

classic(al)

x

comic(al)

x

cubic(al)

x

cynic(al)

x

diabolic(al)

x

dialectic(al)

x

x

dynamic(al)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x x

ecologic(al)

x

economic(al)

x

x

x

x

electric(al)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

elliptic(al)

x

emphatic(al)

x

empiric(al)

x

x

epic(al)

x

eristic(al)

x

ethic(al)

x

fanatic(al)

x

x x

fistic(al) geographic(al)

Peters (2004)

Garner (2003)

Davidson (2001)

Burchfield (1996)

Howard (1993)

Crystal (1991)

Fowler (1926)

Bernstein (1965)

Morris and Morris (1975)

Appendix A: The entries of words ending in -ic/ical in the usage guides examined

x x

x

x

x

x

x

216

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

geometric(al)

x

hierarchic(al)

x

historic(al)

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

hyperbolic(al)

x

x

x

hypothetic(al)

x

x

x

hysteric(al)

x

x

x

identic(al)

x x

x

ironic(al)

x

x

x

juristic(al)

x

logistic(al)

x

lyric(al)

x

x

x

magic(al)

x

x

x

x

x

x

metric(al) monarchic(al)

x

mystic(al)

x

mythic(al)

x

mythologic(al)

x

x x

neurologic(al)

x

numeric(al)

x

obstetric(al)

x

x

parasitic(al)

x

x

x

parenthetic(al)

x

x

x

pedagogic(al) periodic(al)

x

x x

x

x

x

x

pharisaic(al)

x

pharmaceutic(al)

x

philosophic(al)

x

poetic(al)

x

polemic(al)

x

politic(al)

x

pragmatic(al)

x

problematic(al)

x

prophetic(al)

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

prototypic(al) psychic(al)

x

x

x x

x

x

x

x

x

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

puritanic(al)

x

x

rhapsodic(al)

x

x

rhythmic(al)

x

x

satiric(al)

x

x

x

x

schismatic(al)

x

skeptic(al)

x

x

x x

sophic(al) sophistic(al)

x x

spasmodic(al) static(al)

x

x

statistic(al)

x

x

stereotypic(al)

x

x

x

x

x

stoic(al)

x

strategic(al)

x

x

x

x

x

x

symbolic(al)

x

theoretic(al)

x

tragic(al)

x

x

x

tropic(al)

x

typic(al)

x

typographic(al)

x

x

tyrannic(al)

x

x

uneconomic(al)

x

x

x

Total

49

2

5

5

17

45

7

40

39

3

unique pairs

4

0

0

0

0

1

1

14

5

0

217

218

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

accusative/ory

x

allusive/ory

x

amative/ory

x

anticipative/ory

x

capitulative/ory

x

conciliative/ory

x

confirmative/ory

x

congratulative/ory

x

conservative/ory

x

consultative/ory

x

consultive/ory

x

contradictive/ory

x

contributive/ory

x

corroborative/ory

x

curative/ory

x

declarative/ory

x

dedicative/ory

x

defamative/ory

x

depreciative/ory

x

derisive/ory

x

x

x

x

x

x

derogative/ory

x x

discriminative/ory

x

disintegrative/ory

x

educative/ory

x

Brians (2009)

Peters (2004)

Garner (2003)

Davidson (2001)

Burchfield (1996)

Howard (1993)

Crystal (1991)

Morris and Morris (1975)

Bernstein (1965)

Fowler (1926)

Appendix B. The entries of words ending in -ive/ory in the usage guides examined

Which Items Need to be Standardised?

elusive/elusory/ illusory

x

x

219

x

exploitative/ory

x

inculpative/ory

x

indicative/ory

x

inhibitive/ory

x

injunctive/ory

x

interrogative/ory

x

investigative/ory

x

laudative/ory

x

mandative/ory

x

obligative/ory

x

possessive/ory

x

preclusive/ory

x

predative/ory

x

preparative/ory

x

prohibitive/ory

x

propulsive/ory

x

prosecutive/ory

x

protective/ory

x

provocative/ory

x

punitive/ory

x

recriminative/ory

x

refractive/ory

x

regulative/ory

x

reparative/ory

x

restitutive/ory

x

retributive/ory

x

sanative/ory

x

secretive/ory

x

speculative/ory

x

transitive/ory

x

vindicative/ory

x

Total

2

0

1

0

1

2

1

54

3

0

unique pairs

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

52

2

0

220

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Appendix C. Words in -ic/ical in the BNC and COCA (frequency of the rarer items >0.5 pmw) BNC: analytic(al)

economic(al)

mechanic(al)

politic(al)

arithmetic(al)

electric(al)

medic(al)

problematic(al)

asymmetric(al)

ethic(al)

metaphoric(al)

rhetoric(al)

bibliographic(al)

fanatic(al)

metric(al)

rhythmic(al)

botanic(al)

geographic(al)

music(al)

sceptic(al)

classic(al)

geometric(al)

mystic(al)

statistic(al)

cleric(al)

graphic(al)

mythic(al)

stratigraphic(al)

clinic(al)

heretic(al)

optic(al)

symmetric(al)

comic(al)

historic(al)

pedagogic(al)

tactic(al)

critic(al)

ironic(al)

periodic(al)

topic(al)

cyclic(al)

logic(al)

philosophic(al)

topographic(al)

cynic(al)

logistic(al)

physic(al)

uneconomic(al)

dialectic(al)

lyric(al)

poetic(al)

dynamic(al)

magic(al)

polemic(al)

acoustic(al)

electric(al)

lyric(al)

physiologic(al)

analytic(al)

epidemiologic(al)

magic(al)

polemic(al)

anatomic(al)

ethic(al)

mechanic(al)

politic(al)

asymmetric(al)

fanatic(al)

medic(al)

rhetoric(al)

botanic(al)

fantastic(al)

metaphoric(al)

skeptic(al)

classic(al)

geographic(al)

music(al)

statistic(al)

cleric(al)

geologic(al)

mystic(al)

symmetric(al)

clinic(al)

geometric(al)

mythic(al)

tactic(al)

comic(al)

graphic(al)

neurologic(al)

topic(al)

critic(al)

heretic(al)

numeric(al)

topographic(al)

cyclic(al)

hermeneutic(al)

optic(al)

tropic(al)

cynic(al)

historic(al)

pathologic(al)

dialectic(al)

logic(al)

periodic(al)

economic(al)

logistic(al)

philosophic(al)

COCA:

14 ‘Garnering’ Respect? The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition Matthijs Smits

‘Garnering Respect’? – Evaluating Garner’s Authority Introduction For writers, linguists and indeed many other language professionals, Bryan Garner (born 1958) hardly needs an introduction as one of the world’s most successful usage guide writers. In this arena, Garner is known to linguists as a devout prescriptivist, although Garner proclaims himself to be ‘a kind of descriptive prescriber’ (Garner, 2009: xl) (see also Kaunisto, this volume). Garner goes to great lengths to establish his avowed authority on language usage, yet few have tried to empirically ascertain whether Garner’s judgements are accurate and hence if his methodology is reliable. This chapter critically examines Garner’s methodology in the third edition of Modern American Usage (2009, henceforth GMAU) and contains a case study of three fairly randomly selected usage problems, i.e. hopefully as a sentence adverb, sneaked/snuck and different from/than/to, on the basis of which I will try to determine whether Garner’s claim can indeed be justified.

Garner’s methodology Garner’s methodology has remained consistent down to the third edition of GMAU (2009). The preface to the first edition includes his guiding principles, a small section on the ‘state of the [usage dictionary] genre’ and his methodology. In each new edition of his usage guide, the prefaces attempt to justify a prescriptive approach to language. Garner’s guiding principles make sense from an editor’s point of view, as can be inferred from the headings he uses to denote the principles he adopted, such as Linguistic Simplicity, Tightness, Conservatism, Actual Usage and Needless Variants. When he refers to actual usage, Garner (2009: xviii)

221

222

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

means ‘educated’ usage, which he says is ‘likely to induce hissy fits among modern linguists’. When he writes on the ‘state of the genre’, he furthermore accuses linguists of ‘hijacking’ the usage dictionary, characterising them as permissive. However, Garner (2009: xix) argues that ‘the book does something quite new: it gathers reams of current linguistic evidence to show the many confusions into which writers fall’. Indeed, his practice of using databases such as Nexis and Westlaw to back up ‘judgment calls’ does seem to marry a prescriptive approach with descriptive research techniques (Garner, 2009: xx; cf. Peters, 2006: 765). Unfortunately, other than showing examples of keyword searches, as for instance when searching for the prevalence of ethicist versus ethician, he does not provide any more contextual information on the features of the corpora he used (Garner, 2009: xx), nor on the data he gathered. Then again, it is clear from Garner’s other prefatory essays that GMAU was not written with the linguist in mind.

Critical reception and changes through different editions Judging from one of the few professional (academic) reviews of the book that I have come across, GMAU definitively trumped Strunk and White’s Elements of Style. In his review of the third edition, Robert Wachal conveniently compares the most recent edition of Elements of Style (1999) and GMAU, and concludes that GMAU is a far better guide (Wachal, 2000: 202). His objections to GMAU, however, are notable. First, Wachal observes that there are many superfluous spelling and lexicographical entries that make the book unnecessarily long. Second, the book contains ‘mini-essays’ that have little to do with usage, for example the entry on Americanisms and Briticisms (in an American usage guide). His final criticism is that not all of Garner’s entries are equally reliable. Indeed, Garner would seem to draw on personal taste as opposed to descriptive practices on a number of issues, ascribing for example instances of mispronunciation (warsh for wash) and ungrammaticality (multiple negatives) to entries which merely reflect dialectal varieties (Wachal, 2000: 203−207). Moreover, Garner frequently violates two basic principles which allegedly underpin his work: Realism. To guide users helpfully, recommendations on usage must be genuinely plausible. They must recognize the language as it currently stands, encourage reasonable approaches to editorial problems, and avoid refighting battles that were long ago lost. Actual Usage. In the end, the actual usage of educated speakers and writers is the overarching criterion for correctness. (Garner, 1998: x−xi) If this were so, Wachal argues (2000: 206), GMAU would have been far more descriptive in its approach.

The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

223

The second edition (2003) contains a ‘rethinking’ of the usage entries in the first edition. From the first edition, Garner included real-life examples of improper usage and included the full names of the authors (perpetrators?). For this edition, he updated many entries with additional usage citations. Strikingly, he did not update the third edition with new usage citations (the most recent illustrations still being from 2003). In the third edition, Garner also updated his timeline of grammars and usage guides by including Robert Lowth’s (1762) Short Introduction to English Grammar (in the first edition, the first grammarian he included was Joseph Priestley, with his Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar of 1762).1 The third edition is the most substantially expanded edition of GMAU. 2 First, Garner introduced a ‘Language-Change Index’, which tries to give an indication of (non-)acceptability for different usage entries. As Garner notes in the preface to this edition, he is greatly indebted to the languagechange scale developed by Heller and Macris, which he appropriated and expanded to serve his own ends: Stage 1: A new form emerges as an innovation (or some dialectal usage persists) among a small minority of the language community, perhaps displacing a traditional usage. […] People normally consider innovations at this stage outright mistakes. Most people who are aware of them hope they won’t spread. Stage 2: The form spreads to a significant portion of the language community, but it remains unacceptable in standard usage. […] Terms in stage 2 often get recorded in dictionaries as variant forms, but this fact alone is hardly a recommendation for their use. Stage 3: The form becomes commonplace even among many welleducated people, but it’s still avoided in careful usage […]. Stage 4: The form becomes virtually universal but is opposed on cogent grounds by a few linguistic stalwarts (the traditionalists that David Foster Wallace dubbed ‘snoots’: syntax nudniks of our time). Stage 5: The form is universally adopted except by a few eccentrics. It’s a linguistic fait accompli: what was once merely de facto had become accepted as de jure. There’s no going back here. (Garner, 2009: liv) Although Garner (2009: lv) assigned rankings ‘by a variety of methods’, for example by doing an overview of the most ‘canonical’ language surveys and making use of digital corpora, his methodology in this case is rather hit-ormiss. For example, it is difficult to discern the contemporary descriptive value of language surveys that were performed over 50 years ago (as is the case with his use of Margaret M. Bryant’s Current American Usage survey published in 1962). Furthermore, he gives no indication of how he weighed the surveys and corpus information. Also, Garner (2009: lv) admits to

224

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

relying on his ‘own sense, based on a lifetime of serious linguistic study, of where a given usage falls on the spectrum of acceptability in Standard English’. It seems curious that he uses the term ‘linguistic’ in this sentence, but the real question is why he should rely on his ‘own sense’ if he also has access to more reliable tools (like the Westlaw and Nexis databases with full-text search capabilities) for describing acceptability. Finally, Garner presented the usage items to an ‘expert panel’, similar to one devised by The American Heritage Dictionary. The reliability of his ‘expert panel’ must be questioned since it is doubtful whether his panel reached consensus on a multitude of issues, unless they were consulted individually on a caseby-case basis. Moreover, Garner (2009: lv) mentions that he discussed ‘linguistic matters with acknowledged experts’ (acknowledged by whom?) such as Charles Harrington Elster (a usage guide writer), Christopher Ricks (a literary critic), Wendalyn Nichols (an editor), John Simon (a usage critic) and Barbara Wallraff (an editor). Again, while their opinions may be of value where stylistic matters are concerned, the accuracy of Garner’s judgement rests on descriptive practices. In sum, the question arose as to whether Garner arrived at a judgement by using all these methods, or whether he selected the evidence that was most commensurate with his own usage preferences. Judging from Garner’s appeals to authority (usage of ‘educated speakers’, usage panels, ethos, i.e. his own experience, reference books like H.W. Fowler’s Modern English Usage and to some extent empirical observation), that issue does not seem very salient: the sheer enumeration of these different ‘authoritative devices’ is meant to convince (perhaps overwhelm) the reader to believe that his judgement can be trusted. In that sense, Garner is particularly knowledgeable about the developments in the usage guide tradition.

Testing GMAU Judgements Empirically Introduction In order to find out where Garner stands in relation to the prescriptive– descriptive debate, I have selected three usage items that exemplify divided usage. The usage items belong to grammatical categories which lend themselves best to empirical research in corpora (as opposed to pronunciation matters, for example). My decision to focus on these particular features was the availability of scholarly literature on the items in question, such as Busse and Schröder (2010) on hopefully as a sentence adverb and on the variation in preferences for the preposition following different, and Hogg (1988), Cheshire (1994) and Horslund (2014) on sneaked/snuck. Like Garner, I will also be using two corpora to gather empirical evidence, which I will then compare to Garner’s usage judgements. The empirical evidence will be tested against the most recent edition of GMAU (2009) for three reasons.

The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

225

First, Garner’s judgements on these issues have remained consistent, and the usage items have all been placed on his ‘Language-Change Index’. Because the index is based on a five-point acceptability scale, it is easier to quantify Garner’s judgements (to what degree does he accept or reject a given usage?) in relation to the textual advice he provides. Second, the usage items are well-known English usage problems, which have been studied empirically by different authors: Busse and Schröder (2010) focused on different to/from/ than and hopefully as a sentence adverb in British and American grammars and usage guides, and Cheshire (1994), Lass (1994) and Hogg (1988) studied the history of irregular preterite verbs (which includes snuck).

Usage items Between the three editions of GMAU, Garner maintains the same advice for all usage entries under investigation. With the second edition, he expanded his linguistic evidence by offering additional examples. For the third edition, he added a significant amount of information to the section on different, including the use of differing (as adjective and verb) in the entry. The entry for hopefully is likewise expanded by the addition of a short section on the history of hopefully as a sentence adverb; he also cites an academic article that is concerned with the historical origins of hopefully as a sentence adverb, Fred R. Shapiro’s (1999) ‘Earlier computerassisted evidence on the emergence of hopefully as a sentence adverb’. For all three entries, Garner labelled their acceptability according to his ‘Language-Change Index’. Hopefully is in Stage 4 of the Language-Change Index, using snuck for sneaked (snuck being non-standard according to Garner [2009: 756]) is in Stage 3 of the index and so is the use of different than instead of different from. He does not mention where different to falls on the scale.

The Corpus of Contemporary American-English (COCA): The monitor corpus In order to understand the trustworthiness of Garner’s judgements, we need to test his data (and judgements) against a reference corpus, i.e. an alternative data source to the Westlaw and Nexis databases that Garner consulted. To this end, I made use of COCA, a Corpus of Contemporary American-English (2008). COCA is the largest freely available online corpus of American English. At the time of writing, the size of COCA was approximately 450 million words, including a number of different genres (including spoken, fiction, magazines, newspapers and academic journals) from the past 20 years (1990−2012). In addition, the corpus contains a number of useful features that make COCA an excellent tool for acquiring empirical language data. As Mark Davies (2010: 447), the compiler of the

226

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

corpus, has averred, COCA is the first true ‘monitor’ corpus available online. There are three reasons for this. First, in contrast to many other extant corpora, COCA is dynamic (as opposed to static), meaning that the corpus is continually updated with new content and therefore closely reflects changes in ‘the real world’ (Davies, 2010: 448). Second, COCA’s search engine is highly customisable, allowing a theoretically infinite number of user-defined search entries, which also makes it possible to search for grammatical constructions (e.g. preposition stranding), or at least much easier than in the past (Davies, 2010: 454–462). Third, the corpus is a balanced one, because it comprises approximately 20 million words per year divided over the different genres and contains a wide range of different text-types, such as a ‘spoken’ category which includes transcripts of talk shows and news broadcasts (Davies, 2010: 453). The different search commands used to investigate the occurrence of language phenomena such as hopefully as a sentence adverb, snuck as a preterite form and the occurrence of different to/from/than are provided in the results section below. Additionally, I have made use of COHA (Corpus of Historical American English, 2010), which is the historical counterpart to COCA. It is a 400-million-word corpus, spanning the period 1810−2009 by decade, and is based on the same architecture as COCA (i.e. it has similar search features). However, COHA is not a balanced corpus (the most recent decades are much larger in size) and the search results are not sorted by genre (the corpus only provides total frequencies). Moreover, COHA is composed of fewer genres than COCA as it lacks the SPOKEN and ACADEMIC categories, while NEWSPAPERS are only included from the 1860s on. Also, FICTION and POPULAR MAGAZINES form the largest part of the corpus, followed by NON-FICTION and NEWSPAPERS. However, because COHA’s data range goes back further than the 1990s, it can prove useful for demonstrating historical trends in usage, especially when contrasted with COCA.

The corpus investigation of hopefully, snuck and different from/than/to Hopefully Garner’s statement that the ‘original meaning [of hopefully] will be forever lost’ if the ‘extended sense [use as a sentence adverb] is accepted’ is unfounded. He provides no evidence to support this assumption, and, indeed, Wachal (2000: 204) goes even further, stating that ‘Garner makes the extravagant claim that [hopefully] has now lost its traditional meaning. Surely no one would misconstrue She waited hopefully’. Busse and Schröder (2010: 94) note that criticism of hopefully falls into three categories. First, hopefully can be ambiguous, as in the sentence They will leave hopefully in the morning, in which case both meanings (‘in a hopeful

The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

227

manner’/‘it is to be hoped that’) are possible. Second, its widespread use from the 1960s onward could have invited criticism from conservative speakers. A third criticism (in English reference works) is that the construction may have been borrowed from American English (Busse & Schröder, 2010: 94). Furthermore, Busse and Schröder (2010: 95) note that most reference works point to its acceptance in standard English, ‘although usage guides up to today find it necessary to comment on this construction’. The COCA and COHA searches provide interesting information with regard to the current and historical usages of hopefully as a sentence adverb. The search string [. hopefully] looks for sentence-initial hopefully, the position in which hopefully is generally used as a sentence-adverbial. This was done in order to exclude occurrences of hopefully as an adverb. Tables 14.1–14.10 present my findings and are arranged as follows. In the tables with odd numbers (Tables 14.1, 14.3, etc., or the COCA tables), the left half of the table is sorted by genre, the right half by time periods (fiveyear intervals, with the exception of 2010−2012). SECTION indicates the genre of the usage statistics, FREQ shows the raw frequency of the usage phenomenon (i.e. the total number of occurrences) and PER MIL shows the normalised frequencies (per million words in the corpus). The only difference in the even-numbered or COHA tables is that SECTION refers to the decades across the entire time frame covered by the corpus. For our purposes, the normalised frequencies are the most important since they enable us to contrast the data over time. The diachronic results in Table 14.1 show that from the 1990s the use of hopefully as a sentence adverb has increased steadily when we look at the normalised frequency (2.35/mil to 4.06/mil). Furthermore, it becomes clear from Table 14.1 that hopefully appears most often in the SPOKEN section of the corpus (5.16/mil), more than three times as often as the ACADEMIC category (1.57/mil). Hopefully is also prevalent in the NEWSPAPER category (4.12/mil); it is almost as common as the FICTION (1.90/mil) and MAGAZINE (2.22/mil) categories combined. This is striking because newspapers are generally copy-edited and tend to have formalised style sheets, and yet we find that hopefully is generally accepted in this formal context (especially Table 14.1 COCA results for hopefully as a sentence adverb SECTION

ALL

SPOKEN

FICTION

MAGAZINE

NEWSPAPER

ACADEMIC

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2009

FREQ

1398

493

172

212

378

143

244

265

305

373

211

PER MIL

3.01

5.16

1.90

2.22

4.12

1.57

2.35

2.56

2.96

3.66

4.06

SEE ALL SUB-SECTIONS AT ONCE

2010-2012

228

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Table 14.2 COHA results for hopefully as a sentence adverb SECTION

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

FREQ

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

3

6

2

7

20

15

23

26

2000 70

PER MIL

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.05

0.00

0.05

0.00

0.12

0.24

0.08

0.29

0.83

0.63

0.91

0.93

2.37

SEE ALL YEARS AT ONCE

when compared to the SPOKEN category). For all that, many instances of hopefully in the NEWSPAPER category collocate with I or me within a word to the left or the right, which suggests that they represent reported speech, and that they might have been categorised as SPOKEN instead.3 When comparing the COCA search to COHA in Table 14.2, we find results that correlate largely with the usage debate on hopefully. From the 1960s, we see the first significant increase in occurrences, before a slight decrease sets in during the next decade, which possibly indicates the impact prescriptive writing or teaching may have had on its use, or an initial conservative backlash against the construction. Its use increases and levels out from the 1980s until the 1990s, before a dramatic increase in use is attested in the 2000s. We should, however, place more emphasis on the data from COCA if we want to gauge the contemporary accuracy of Garner’s judgements. Garner’s usage judgement is out of step with the empirical evidence provided by COCA and COHA; he concedes ‘the battle is now over […] Hopefully is now a part of AmE’ although ‘some stalwarts continue to condemn the word, so that anyone using it in the new sense is likely to have a credibility problem with some readers’. Garner advises: ‘avoid it in all senses if you’re concerned with your credibility: if you use it in the traditional way, many readers will think it odd; if you use it in the newish way, a few readers will tacitly tut-tut you’. Comparing the COCA data against Garner’s judgements, we see that hopefully as a sentence adverb more likely deserves a Stage 5 label (universal acceptance) than the Stage 4 he assigned it, given its steadily increasing usage over time and prevalence in formal contexts. The Stage 4 label (widely accepted, but […]) is likely to reflect Garner’s own position: Wachal (2000: 206) has noted Garner’s dislike for SENTENCE ADVERBS in the first edition of his usage guide. Indeed, under the entry SENTENCE ADVERBS in the third edition, Garner (2009) writes, Improvising sentence adverbs from traditional adverbs like hopefully (= in a hopeful manner) and thankfully (= in a thankful manner) is objectionable to many stylists but seems to be on the rise. Avoid newfangled sentence adverbs of this kind. (Garner, 2009: 734) (emphasis mine)

The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

229

Sneaked versus snuck A historical linguistic analysis of irregular verbs in English Before dealing with the empirical data, it is worth delving into the linguistic background of the formation of preterite verbs, which is relevant to the discussion of sneaked versus snuck. One of the effects of language standardisation has been the limitation of variation in verb forms (Cheshire, 1994: 115). However, past participle and preterite forms continue to show considerable variation between non-standard and standard dialects (Cheshire, 1994: 116). During the periods of Old and Middle English, the weak productive verb pattern in preterite forms (i.e. -ed endings) became current and replaced many verb forms that traditionally had strong verb forms (the historically older construction, in which a vowel in the verb stem is changed) (Cheshire, 1994: 116). The transfer of strong to weak forms occurred mostly during the 14th and 15th centuries, but slowed down considerably afterwards (Cheshire, 1994: 116). In general, however, the weak verb pattern gained preference for loanwords (e.g. judge from French juger) and verbs which were formed from nouns or adjectives (e.g. explete, bin, humidify). Strang (1970: 147, as quoted by Cheshire, 1994: 117 as well as by Horslund, 2014: 52) noted that approximately 60 strong verbs remained in modern (standard) English, compared to the 360 in Old English. In non-standard English varieties, there are far more strong verbs, in addition to the fact that verbs which have traditionally been seen as strong in standard English have weak verb endings in some varieties of the language (e.g. catched, drawed, holded) (Cheshire, 1994: 117). Despite the halt in strong to weak transfer in standard English, certain strong forms persisted in the standard dialects of English. On the one hand, this has to do with sociolinguistic differentiation, with current strong forms being preferred over the weak forms by ‘cultivated’ speakers (Cheshire, 1994: 118). Since strong verbs were relatively low in number but frequent in speech, they became excellent social markers, and ‘educated’ speakers thus used these forms to distinguish themselves linguistically (Cheshire, 1994: 120). The psycholinguistic argument first developed by Hogg (1988) was that because strong verbs operate on a different morphophonological basis (a vowel changes in the main form of a verb) compared to the weak verb paradigm, they are treated as ‘separate lexical items’ (Cheshire, 1994: 120). Higher-class speakers thus intentionally avoided the weak verb paradigm, which was generally applied to a majority of verbs, to distinguish themselves linguistically. This becomes even more apparent in the overgeneralisation of -ed endings in developmental children’s English, which educated speakers would also have wanted to avoid (Cheshire, 1994: 120). Additionally, Lass (1994: 98−109) found that strong forms were prescribed by many different grammarians of the 18th century when codifying the language, whereby weak forms were offered as secondary

230

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

(and thus less frequent) alternatives in standard dialects. In the context of language standardisation, which limits variation and promotes uniformity (cf. Milroy & Milroy, [1985] 2012), it may be surmised that the task of codifiers could have led to a strong preference for the weak verb paradigm. Yet because many codifiers were aware of the social class distinction that was marked by strong and weak verb forms, certain strong forms won out over weaker ones. As Cheshire (1994) states: The frequency of occurrence of the strong verbs in everyday speech would have made them prime candidates for use as social markers. If strong forms are stored and accessed as separate items, they would have been securely embedded in the mental lexicons of speakers of English, and resistant to the spread of the morpho-phonological rule that produces weak preterite forms. Gradually, as strong forms were used more often in written English and in the spoken English of those who wanted to appear cultivated, the strong forms of these verbs became ‘fixed’ as standard. In nonstandard English, on the other hand, where strong forms continue to co-occur with weak forms, speakers have two possibilities: they may access the strong form as a lexical item, or they may apply the morpho-phonological rule to the verb stem and produce the weak form. (Cheshire, 1994: 120) Prescriptivists thus seem to have had a powerful impact on privileging certain strong preterite and past participle forms, such as Lowth’s preference for preterite forms (e.g. drank instead of drunk) (Lass, 1994: 107−108). There are, however, a number of verbs which were unaffected, in particular those whose preterite forms were ‘unexpected’ (because they are unetymological when compared to the verb stems), such as those for sneak, sting, strike etc. which all have /ʌ/ in their preterite form (Cheshire, 1994: 122). This is because besides the general weak productive rule, the strong verb paradigm coexisted with it from at least the 17th century onwards, and managed to ‘fix’ a number of verbs in the language (Cheshire, 1994: 123). Between 1600 and 1800, preterite and past participle /u/ forms (which later became /ʌ/) continued to exist alongside weak forms in -ed, developing into a social marker as a non-standard form. In this light, it appears that it is not the case, as Horslund (2014: 52) suggests, that we have to do with a ‘change in the reverse direction’ here, that is, with sneak developing from a weak to a strong verb rather than the ‘general trend towards regularisation’ which would have given rise to sneaked.4 One psycholinguistic motive offered by Hogg (1988: 38 quoted from Cheshire, 1994: 123) is that this sound, /ʌ/, denoted a sense of ‘pastness’. Bybee and Moder (1983) had similarly advanced the ‘pastness’ argument though qualifying it somewhat: the phonetic shape /ʌ/ followed by a nasal or velar consonant (e.g. snuck) (Cheshire, 1994: 123). Thus, besides the arguments

The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

231

that the /ʌ/ preterite forms persisted in speech and writing because of their use and function as social markers, the strong productive pattern denoted by /ʌ/ + nasal or velar consonant means that these preterite forms are: organized according to a schema that relates their phonological form to their morphological function of signaling ‘past tense’. The mental process that is involved seems to be a product-oriented process, for it is the preterite forms of this group [/ʌ/ preterite/past participle forms] of strong verbs that seems to have significance for speakers of English, rather than their base forms. (Cheshire, 1994: 124)

Results For ease of presentation, I’d like to refer to Garner’s usage judgement for snuck in section 2.2. To speak of a real written ‘standard’ as he does, especially given the fact that the weak form sneaked and the strong form snuck have coexisted for so long, is misleading. The empirical data, too, tell a very different story about the current use and acceptability of snuck. Garner places snuck at Stage 3 of the Language Change Index, meaning that it is widely used (even among the well-educated) but avoided in careful usage. The search string for the present inquiry was simply [sneaked] and [snuck], and the results are presented in Tables 14.3−14.6. Table 14.3 COCA results for sneaked SECTION

ALL

SPOKEN

FICTION

MAGAZINE

NEWSPAPER

ACADEMIC

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2009

2010-2012

FREQ

863

60

469

149

159

26

207

184

222

178

72

PER MIL

1.86

0.63

5.19

1.56

1.73

0.29

1.99

1.78

2.16

1.74

1.39

SEE ALL SUB-SECTIONS AT ONCE

Table 14.4 COHA results for sneaked SECTION

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

FREQ

0

0

11

11

5

11

13

11

32

56

74

91

62

79

87

74

84

71

108

104

PER MIL

0.00

0.00

0.80

0.69

0.30

0.64

0.70

0.54

1.55

2.53

3.26

3.55

2.52

3.24

3.54

3.09

3.53

2.80

3.87

3.52

SEE ALL YEARS AT ONCE

232

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Table 14.5 COCA results for snuck SECTION

ALL

SPOKEN

FICTION

MAGAZINE

NEWSPAPER

ACADEMIC

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2009

FREQ

841

187

435

136

64

19

119

160

165

242

2010-2012 155

PER MIL

1.81

1.96

4.81

1.42

0.70

0.21

1.14

1.55

1.60

2.37

2.99

SEE ALL SUB-SECTIONS AT ONCE

Table 14.6 COHA results for snuck SECTION

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

FREQ

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

4

1

4

6

7

17

30

24

62

91

PER MIL

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.00

0.05

0.18

0.04

0.16

0.25

0.29

0.71

1.26

0.95

2.22

3.08

SEE ALL YEARS AT ONCE

The search results in Tables 14.3−14.6 provide empirical evidence that corroborates the preceding linguistic discussion. First, if usage in the spoken language is truly a good indicator of language change, Tables 14.3 and 14.5 indicate that snuck is becoming increasingly acceptable, as it is used more than three times as often as sneaked in spoken situations (1.96/mil versus 0.63/mil). In the FICTION and MAGAZINE categories, sneaked is used slightly more often than snuck (5.19/mil versus 4.81/mil and 1.56/mil versus 1.42/mil, respectively). Notably, the use of sneaked and snuck predominates in the FICTION category. In ‘careful usage’, both forms are rare in the category ACADEMIC (0.29/mil for sneaked and 0.21/mil for snuck). However, there is a marked preference for sneaked in the NEWSPAPER category (1.73/mil versus 0.70/mil). Sneaked is thus used more than twice as often in newspapers, although the usage statistics are a bit closer in academic writing, with sneaked being a bit more common (then again, sneaked or snuck are probably not very common in academic or formal writing). The diachronic results are more revealing when it comes to usage in general. In the 1990s, sneaked was used more often than snuck (1.99/mil to 1.78/mil and 1.14/mil to 1.55/mil, respectively), yet the use of snuck had been increasing steadily in this period, until it eventually overtook sneaked between 2005 and 2009 (2.37/mil versus 1.74/mil). The jump in frequency from the first to the second half of the first decade of the 2000s is quite dramatic (an almost 50% increase). The most recent statistics (2010−2012) show an even sharper preference for snuck (2.99/mil versus 1.39/mil), and the use of sneaked has been declining steadily since its highest frequency

The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

233

during the period 2000−2004 (2.16/mil). Given the preceding linguistic discussion and the empirical data provided by COCA, preference for snuck should hardly be ‘surprising’ as Garner (2009: 756) puts it. Nonetheless, his Stage 3 label is accurate with regard to careful usage (particularly in the NEWSPAPER category of COCA; still, sneaked and snuck are not very common in these contexts), but when it comes to observing the empirical data Garner is very far off: snuck is currently more than three times as common as sneaked in spoken situations and almost as common in writing (not half as common as Garner asserts), and the trends of the past decade indicate that its use is likely to increase. The COHA results in Tables 14.4 and 14.6 are illuminating when we examine trends over an extended period of time. Table 14.4 demonstrates that sneaked has historically been more frequent. The results are, however, a bit skewed, as COHA does not include a SPOKEN category, which accounts for much of the usage data for snuck, especially in terms of the last 20 years as discussed previously. However, if the data are anything to go by, it shows that for the last 30 years snuck has become more common (from 1980 to 2000, 0.95/mil to 2.22/mil to 3.08/mil). This largely corresponds with the evidence from COCA which shows that snuck has distinctly overtaken sneaked in a short period of time.

Different from/than/to Another problematical usage item in English has been the question of which preposition should follow the word different. Historically, three prepositions have been used the most in collocation with different: from, than and to. In their investigation, for which they drew on other corpora than COHA or COCA, Busse and Schröder compared the information provided in various reference works to corpus data, in which they found a preference for different from in all varieties of English. The preferred secondary variant was different than in American English, whereas it was different to in British English (Busse & Schröder, 2010: 97). While Garner does not expound on the historical debate regarding which usage was typically seen as correct, he takes ‘a qualified contextual look’ (to borrow a phrase from Busse and Schröder [2010: 99]) on why different than is sometimes more idiomatic than different from. Although he notes that different from is generally the preferred form, he does not attribute this to evidence from corpus data, but draws on stylistic taste instead (Garner, 2009: 253). He deals with different to in a very cursory manner, stating that it is ‘common and unobjectionable BrE’, even though different to is almost as common as different than in American English, and people seem to prefer different from in British English as well (Busse & Schröder, 2010: 97). Garner labels the use of different than for different from a Stage 3 item but does not mention different to (perhaps because he regards it as occurring chiefly in British English).

234

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

The search lemma in my analysis was [different], and I performed two separate collocate searches with from and than, each preposition being within three words’ distance following different. Three words’ distance was the maximum number which could accurately reflect a comparative different from/than phrase. I decided not to include a search of different to because this would yield too many results which are not strictly comparative phrases. After all, different to can often be followed by pronouns (He looks different to me) or by verbs to make an infinitive construction (It feels different to read upside down), which would not be considered comparative phrases. Garner could be correct in stating that different to occurs mainly in British English, yet a search in British corpora to confirm this view is beyond the scope of this chapter. The results from COCA and COHA for different from and different than are illustrated in Tables 14.7–14.10. Table 14.7 COCA results for different from SECTION

ALL

SPOKEN

FICTION

MAGAZINE

NEWSPAPER

ACADEMIC

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2009

FREQ

16246

2705

2298

3223

2344

5676

3902

3719

3714

3259

2010-2012 1652

PER MIL

34.99

28.31

25.41

33.73

25.56

62.33

37.52

35.95

36.08

31.94

31.83

SEE ALL SUB-SECTIONS AT ONCE

Table 14.8 COHA results for different from SECTION

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

FREQ

29

283

456

645

551

665

771

759

702

856

879

862

803

826

835

823

779

839

934

850

PER MIL

24.55

40.85

33.10

40.19

33.45

38.99

41.54

37.36

34.08

38.74

38.72

33.60

32.64

33.92

34.02

34.32

32.71

33.14

33.43

28.75

2000

SEE ALL YEARS AT ONCE

Table 14.9 COCA results for different than SECTION

ALL

SPOKEN

FICTION

MAGAZINE

NEWSPAPER

ACADEMIC

1990-1994

1995-1999

2000-2004

2005-2009

2010-2012

FREQ

6563

2846

656

839

1176

1046

1265

1550

1401

1543

804

PER MIL

14.13

29.78

7.25

8.78

12.82

11.49

12.16

14.98

13.61

15.12

15.49

SEE ALL SUB-SECTIONS AT ONCE

The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

235

Table 14.10 COHA results for different than SECTION

1810

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

FREQ

1

8

16

6

13

3

11

7

17

25

32

45

51

76

57

88

100

135

253

240

PER MIL

0.85

1.15

1.16

0.37

0.79

0.18

0.59

0.34

0.83

1.13

1.41

1.75

2.07

3.12

2.32

3.67

4.20

5.33

9.05

8.12

SEE ALL YEARS AT ONCE

Table 14.11 Prevalence of different collocates in COCA’s written categories Written category

FICTION

MAGAZINE

NEWSPAPER

ACADEMIC

Different from Different than

25.41/mil 7.25/mil

33.73/mil 8.78/mil

25.56/mil 12.82/mil

62.33/mil 11.49/mil

Judging from the results presented in Tables 14.7−14.10, we see a number of interesting things. First, in all the written categories (FICTION, MAGAZINE, NEWSPAPER and ACADEMIC), different from is far more frequent than different than. This information is presented in Table 14.11. However, Table 14.7 demonstrates a slight but consistent decrease in prevalence across time (37.52/mil to 31.83/mil), although different from is still more than twice as common as different than (the highest figure is 15.49/mil from the most recent data). Different than, while being used less frequently overall in written categories, is used extensively in speech (29.78/mil), slightly more often than different from (28.31/mil). The total use of different than has generally been increasing over the past 20 years, with the exception of 2000−2004 (12.16/mil from 1990−1994 to 15.49/mil from 2010−2012). When compared with COCA, the trend in COHA shows that different from has historically been the most prevalent construction, although its use seems to be declining given the data from both corpora. Different than, on the other hand, has been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century.

Conclusion In the brief usage survey in which I compared the observations in Garner (2009) relating to three selected usage problems with empirical data from COCA and COHA, it appears that Garner’s judgements do not always correspond with the empirical data. Between two different entries on hopefully as a sentence adverb and sentence adverbs in general, Garner would seem to (grudgingly) accept hopefully, although he is quick to proscribe ‘newfangled’ sentence adverbs such as hopefully and thankfully in

236

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

the entry on sentence adverbs (Garner, 2009: 734). The data from COCA and COHA show that hopefully has been gaining ground for the past decade, and even its use in ‘careful’ contexts is fairly common. In the discussion on which preterite form of sneak is to be preferred, Garner concludes that snuck is non-standard and is used half as often as sneaked (in ‘careful’ writing). In reality, despite the preterite form snuck being considered non-standard, it has coexisted alongside sneaked for the past 400 years. That snuck shows up in COHA in any numbers only much later has to do with its non-standard status, which would make it unlikely for the form to make an earlier appearance in standard printed texts. The data from COCA shows that snuck became the more dominant form (especially in speech, though in writing it is almost as common) in the early 2000s. In this case, Garner’s judgement that snuck is half as common as sneaked may well apply to ‘careful’ usage (in newspapers and academic writing). Despite this, sneaked and snuck do not occur very often in formal situations, although snuck has become the dominant preterite form of sneak, especially during the past decade. Garner’s treatment of different from/than/to is adequate. He makes no mention of the frequency of the constructions, but his Stage 3 label for the use of different than accurately reflects the empirical data found in COCA: different than is used half as often as different from in writing – and he adds useful information on the comparative stylistic advantages of either construction. Based on this brief inquiry, it should be concluded that Garner’s judgements should be taken with a grain of salt: two of the entries are not necessarily empirically accurate and may be based too much on personal preference. My discussion of different from/than/to is perhaps incomplete in that, for practical purposes, I did not consider different to. However, the present inquiry may usefully point out some of the methodological discrepancies in Garner’s work, especially when compared to the claims he makes in prefatory essays, vindicating himself as ‘a kind of descriptive prescriber’. It is therefore not quite the case, as Peters (2006) suggests, that the modern usage guide tradition is characterised by an increased reliance on empirical data obtained through access to text corpora.

Notes (1) (2) (3) (4)

Interestingly, this is not the kind of grammatical work for which Priestley is usually referred to in a context like prescriptivism (see for instance Straaijer [2011] for an analysis of Priestley’s grammar). A fourth edition of GMAU came out in 2016. I am grateful to one of the reviewers of this chapter for pointing this out. On problems of the categorisation of COCA instances, see Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Kostadinova (2015: 14). This is actually not only the case for sneaked/snuck discussed here, but also for the other verb analysed by Horslund, dragged/drug; see Cheshire (1994: 122−123).

The Emergence of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

237

References Busse, U. and Schröder, A. (2010) Problem areas of English grammar between usage, norm, and variation. In A. Lenz and A. Plewnia (eds) Grammar between Norm and Variation (pp. 87−102). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Bybee, J.L. and Moder, C.L. (1983) Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 265−289. Cheshire, J. (1994) Standardization and the English irregular verbs. In D. Stein and I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds) Towards a Standard English, 1600–1800 (pp. 115−134). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. COCA (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990−present. See http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/ (accessed 28 February 2014). COHA (2010) The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810−2009. See http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/ (accessed 28 February 2014). Davies, M. (2010) The corpus of contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 25 (4), 447–464. Garner, B.A. (1998) A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. New York: Oxford University Press. Garner, B.A. (2009) Garner’s Modern American Usage (3rd edn). New York: Oxford University Press. Hogg, R.M. (1988) Snuck: The development of irregular preterite forms. In G. Nixon and J. Honey (eds) An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang (pp. 31–40). London/New York: Routledge. Horslund, C.S. (2014) How snuck sneaked into English and drug is still dragging behind: A corpus study on the usage of new past tense forms for sneak and drag in British and American English. English Today 30, 51–58. Lass, R. (1994) Proliferation and option-cutting: The strong verb in the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. In D. Stein and I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds) Towards a Standard English, 1600−1800 (pp. 81−114). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. ([1985] 2012) Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation (4th edn). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Peters, P. (2006) English usage: Prescription and description. In B. Aarts and A. McMahon, (eds) Handbook of English Linguistics (pp. 759–80). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Shapiro, F.R. (1999). Earlier computer-assisted evidence on the emergence of hopefully as a sentence adverb. American Speech, 74 (4), 439–441. Straaijer, R. (2011) Joseph Priestley, Grammarian. Late Modern English Normativism and Usage in a Sociohistorical Context. Utrecht: LOT. Strang, B.M.H. (1970) A History of English. London/New York: Methuen. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. and Kostadinova, V. (2015) Have went – an American usage problem. English Language and Linguistics 19 (2), 1−20. Wachal, R.S. (2000) Review of two handbooks on style and usage; The Elements of Style; A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. American Speech 75 (2), 199−207.

15 Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional Don Chapman

Introduction In a popular usage handbook from the 1990s, we find this interesting statement: (1) Stylistically, the word [contact] still bothers some readers, who associate it with business jargon, but it is established as standard English. (Ebbitt & Ebbitt, 1990: s.v. ‘contact’)1 I call this interesting because it mentions two tiers of approval. One is the typical aim for prescriptive rules, namely ‘standard English’. The other is a less-established group simply referred to as ‘some readers’. Apparently the use of contact as a verb can garner the approval that comes from being part of ‘standard English’, but still not receive the approval of ‘some readers’. This quotation raises questions about who these ‘some readers’ are and what their relationship is to rules and Standard English. Vague references to this less-established group of readers are widely scattered throughout many usage handbooks, and those writing about prescriptive rules cannot easily avoid referring to this extra tier of approval coming from ‘some readers’. The abundance of references to and ambiguous nature of this group calls for a closer examination, and for this examination, the concept of tradition will be valuable – particularly how the workings of tradition can be used to explain much about this group of ‘some readers’ and the rules that matter to them. In particular, I will argue that prescriptive rules constitute a tradition which valorises rules independent of other benefits claimed for the rules, such as their usefulness for enhancing clarity or elegance in language. The operation of this tradition, then, leads to a set of prescriptive rules like the one for contact that manifest the greater allegiance to the tradition of those who follow such rules. At the same time, the tradition naturalises its own

238

Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional

239

assumptions, giving more credibility to this group of additional readers and rules. To discuss more readily how prescriptive rules work in society, we need to account more explicitly for these rules and the role tradition plays in sanctioning them.

Prescriptive Rules as a Tradition Descriptions of a group of rules that are acceptable to some readers but not to all show up frequently throughout usage handbooks, as the following quotations illustrate: (2) Though disinterested in the sense ‘uninterested’ is established in general styles, writers who use it in that way should know that they risk upsetting some readers: ‘I began to hate someone once who habitually said “disinterested” when he should have said “uninterested”’ (Alexander Cockburn, New Statesman). (Ebbitt & Ebbitt, 1990, s.v. ‘disinterested, uninterested’) (3) Some stalwarts continue to condemn the word, so that anyone using it in the new sense is likely to have a credibility problem with some readers. (Garner, 2009, s.v. ‘hopefully’) (4) Most purists from the nineteenth century on have insisted that aggravate means only ‘to make worse’. (Wilson, 1996, s.v. ‘aggravate’) (5) To traditionalists, the adjectival fun and its comparative forms remain blemishes in both writing and speech. (Garner, 2009, s.v. ‘fun’) (6) Most other recent commentators, however, take note of the existence of a ‘traditionalist’ or ‘purist’ position – a position that insists on restriction to two [options]. (Merriam-Webster, 1994, s.v. ‘alternative’) Tellingly, traditionalist is one of the most common terms usage handbooks use to refer to those who attach extra importance to certain rules. This is a good clue that the operation of traditions is important in understanding this group of people. In fact, the term traditional frequently shows up throughout usage handbooks in a use that seems to coincide with the notion of ‘some readers’: (7) The traditional view is that due to should be restricted to adjectival uses in the sense ‘attributable to’. (Garner, 2009, s.v. ‘due to’) (8) Traditionally, comprise means ‘consist of’ or ‘include’. (Ebbitt & Ebbitt, 1990, s.v. ‘comprise’) (9) A traditional rule holds that you should use liable only if the subject (often a person) would be adversely affected by the outcome expressed by the infinitive. (American Heritage, 1996, s.v. ‘liable / apt / likely’)

240

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

(10) In traditional usage continual means recurring at intervals and continuous means going on without interruption. (Copperud, 1980, s.v. ‘continual, continuous’) Why is the term traditional used? Usage handbooks are seldom explicit on what they mean by traditional, but in each of the above quotations, the term traditional seems to qualify a rule whose general applicability is questionable, reserved for when usage writers need a way of explaining the issue without necessarily endorsing the rule. Indeed, the term seems apt, since the significance of ‘some readers’ comes from the workings of the prescriptive tradition. It is not a novel claim that the teaching and learning of prescriptive rules represent a tradition. Peters and Young (1997: 317) call usage handbooks ‘articulators of an anonymous tradition’, since these books frequently discuss the same rules but include little explicit acknowledgement of other usage books. Cameron also refers to the traditional nature of prescriptive rules when discussing the deference that editors pay to them. She notes that Simon Jenkins, as the publisher of the The Times, was in a position to dictate which linguistic variants to use in his newspaper, yet he didn’t see himself in that position. He considered the rules to already have been established. The editors, who enforce the rules, similarly regarded them as already having been established, leading Cameron (1995: 33) to write, ‘the precepts of style form a body of received ideas, receding endlessly into the past without ever appearing to reach any ultimate source’. Williams (1995) was a bit more disparaging in describing how the rules behave as a tradition: Many of the grammatical rules that some among us like to invoke are not linguistic fact, but classroom folklore, invented by eighteenthcentury grammarians out of whole cloth, repeated by editors unwilling to determine whether those rules comport with reality, taught by teachers who teach what textbooks tell them, and ignored by the best writers everywhere. (Williams, 1995: 169–170) The important statement here is that teachers teach what they learn and editors apply what they learn, without any more sanction than the tradition itself. These quotations articulate a crucial notion of traditions, namely that in them something (a traditum in Shils’s terms) is passed along from one generation to another; tradition is a ‘giving across’ the generations, just as its etymology implies (Shils, 1981: 12). The rules are already accepted as established within this tradition; they are then simply taught without justification to the next generation. The salient sense of traditional for the rules mentioned in (3) above is that a rule has been established and passed down within some tradition.

Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional

241

However, it is not simply the rules that are passed along. As Shils (1981: 12–13) further notes, the traditum is usually a complex constellation of attitudes and practices, and one of the most important beliefs passed on in the prescriptive tradition is that there are rewards for following prescriptive rules. These rewards are also regarded as established, and indeed will probably seem self-evident to most people. Basically, the rewards for following prescriptive rules stem from the assumption that those who follow these rules in speech or writing are superior in intelligence, diligence, skill and so forth; therefore, those who use prescribed forms, according to this assumption, will secure positive judgement – or at least avoid the negative judgement reserved for those who do not follow the rules. The basic formulation of these attitudes is given in (11): (11) The use of prescribed variants is thought to index superior qualities (e.g. intelligence, diligence, skill) in those who use them. This attitude is not hard to find: it is behind the statements on T-shirts that say ‘I judge you by your language’ or self-improvement courses called ‘Do You Make These Mistakes in English?’ (Battistella, 2009). This formulation is often softened in prescriptive handbooks, where writers insert an intermediate step, namely, that prescriptive rules characterise a supposedly superior variety of English – usually called Standard English, good English, proper English or some other such label. The use of Standard English is usually considered a good thing in itself, but it is also considered a mark of those same superior qualities noted in (11); the use of Standard English is supposed to secure good judgements from others, or at least insulate a person from censure. This relationship between rules, Standard English and good qualities can be given as: (12) The use of prescribed variants is thought to characterise Standard English, which in turn is thought to index the superior qualities of those who use Standard English. This formulation is how Garner (2009) discusses Standard English, where he first quotes several authorities stating the consequences of failing to use Standard English. Then, with his tongue somewhat in his cheek, he recapitulates their reasons for promoting Standard English: So there’s the neatly compiled answer to why Standard English is worth trying to attain: without it, you won’t be taken seriously. Many people, especially educated people, will regard you with condescension, amusement, and contempt; they’ll consider you vulgar, uneducated, rustic, and possibly even disgusting; you might well arouse fury, pity, or scorn. (Garner, 2009, s.v. ‘Standard English’)

242

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Since the rules are thought to define Standard English, it is simply a matter of transitivity to infer – as many do – that following the rules confers the same rewards as using Standard English. Thus, in practice, (12) is often reduced to (11).

The Role of Tradition in Validating Prescriptive Rules This connection between rules and rewards – that using prescribed forms will ensure positive judgements – has become entrenched in popular consciousness. That this notion seems natural to most people is a mark of the prescriptive tradition’s success. Whether following these rules really does index superior qualities has been challenged for at least a century. Joseph’s (1987: 41) statement is typical: ‘It is doubly wrong to assume that an individual who speaks a standard language is cognitively superior to one who does not’. Yet, despite these challenges, the perceived value of following the rules will remain as long as enough people believe that such adherence indicates superior qualities – regardless of whether following the rules really does so. On the surface, the formulations in (11) and (12) embody claims that could be empirically tested. In principle, it is possible to identify variants that elicit harsh judgements or that occur less often in Standard English (however that is defined), and to the degree that usage guides provide such empirically validated information, they are simply reporting on what we need to know to avoid censure. Undoubtedly that is how most usage commentators see their advice. However, it is just as likely that in presenting prescriptive rules that are thought to provoke negative judgements, the usage handbooks are teaching readers the forms that deserve their negative judgements. In this case, listing prescribed and proscribed forms goes beyond mere reporting, and becomes promoting. Presenting these prescribed forms as rules helps ensure that there will be people who will judge others for not following the rules, reinforcing the basic assumptions in (11) and (12). While those who learn the prescriptive rules presented in usage handbooks and classrooms may be genuinely annoyed by certain proscribed forms, in many cases, they have acquired the irritation because they’ve been taught to (Andersson & Trudgill, 1990: 187). Crucially, a tradition will behave the same way, no matter how the information it is transmitting is supported. Whether the rules simply report judgements or whether they help create judgements, the usage handbooks and teachers will continue to teach students that there is a particular set of rules that are important to follow to avoid being judged as sloppy, careless, uneducated or unskillful. In other words, a tradition can valorise and validate the tradita that are transmitted, apart from or in addition to any other considerations that may give the tradita value. As long as the attitudes, concepts and relationships within a tradition

Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional

243

are taught, learned and believed, they will be valuable to those who are invested in the tradition (Williams, 1995: 196). In essence, one of the most important mechanisms for conferring legitimacy and value to the rules is the operation of the tradition itself: the very act of passing on a traditum validates and valorises that traditum. The rewards of knowing a tradition well ultimately lead to the ‘some readers’ referred to in usage handbooks. The ‘some readers’ know the set of rules valorised by tradition and expect their observance of the rules to signal their superiority.

The Role of Traditions in Defining Communities Another feature of traditions that helps us to understand ‘some readers’ is how traditions help define communities. Those who follow a tradition are bound together by their shared commitment to that tradition. The most noticeable instance of defining groups in the prescriptive tradition is the popular conception given in (11) and (12), namely that the use of prescribed forms helps identify those who are more intelligent, more skillful or more diligent. One of the most common labels for this group is ‘the Educated’. What is less noticed, however, is that championing rules itself defines a group, namely those people who are loyal to the prescriptive tradition. Their commitment to the tradition is reflected in the names they choose for themselves: purists, language lovers, language guardians or even traditionalists. From their perspective, their stronger commitment to the prescriptive rules is essential for preserving or protecting the language. So, while the use of some prescribed forms may help identify ‘the Educated’, the use of other forms (like contact) best indexes the level of commitment of ‘some readers’ to the tradition. The insider/outsider dynamic of this group is captured in another entry from Ebbitt and Ebbitt: (13) Though you and I as the object of a preposition or a verb is frequently heard and has a long history in written English, some of those who know better regard anyone who says or writes ‘between you and I’ as only half-educated. (Ebbitt & Ebbitt, 1990: s.v. ‘between you and me’) The phrase ‘those who know better’ is telling. Such readers hold a negative opinion because, in their eyes, they have superior knowledge about how the rules work. The system of rewards for using prescribed forms will actually work better when there is a contrast like that between ‘some readers’ and those using ‘Standard English’ or between ‘written English’ and ‘those who know better’. In other words, it is not an accident that we get statements like (1) and (13) above. Such divisions are intrinsic to traditions in general and

244

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

are embedded in the logic of the prescriptive tradition in particular. Under the assumptions in (11), prescriptive rules are meant to signal the greater ability of those who use them. Fundamentally, the rewards promised for following the rules depend on difference. If following the rules is supposed to index a person’s qualities regarding discipline, education, intelligence, care, skill and so on, we will need differences in the degree to which people follow the rules. If we are to believe that the index really does distinguish people’s relative qualities, we’ll need differences in the index. Pierre Bourdieu (1991: 54) articulates these very dynamics when discussing a linguistic market and ‘legitimate language’: The social uses of language owe their specifically social value to the fact that they tend to be organised in systems of differences (between prosodic and articulatory or lexical and syntactic variants) which reproduce, in the symbolic order of differential deviations, the system of social differences. To speak is to appropriate one of other of the expressive styles already constituted in and through usage and objectively marked by their position in a hierarchy of styles which expresses the hierarchy of corresponding social groups. These styles, systems of differences which are both classified and classifying, ranked and ranking, mark those who appropriate them. And a spontaneous stylistics, armed with a practical sense of the equivalences between the two orders of differences, apprehends social classes through classes of stylistic indices. (Bourdieu, 1991: 54) In other words, the value of using the elite levels in this hierarchy of styles, or Bourdieu’s ‘legitimate language’, comes from those styles being mastered in varying degrees; if everyone could master the legitimate language, it would no longer hold special social value. In a later passage, Bourdieu (1991: 54) characterises the value of using the ‘legitimate language’ as a ‘profit of distinction’, which depends on scarcity to be valuable. As Williams (1995) puts it with his characteristic wit, for centuries, many educated speakers and writers have ignored both the grammarians and their rules. Which has been fortunate for the grammarians, of course, because if those educated speakers had all obeyed all the rules, the grammarians would have had to invent new ones. (Williams, 1995: 176) For the rewards to work as promised, there must be differences, both in language use and in social position. Once we recognise that the social value of prescriptive rules depends on difference and scarcity, it is not a far jump to see that this system of

Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional

245

rewards can create a hierarchy even within ‘legitimate language’. Within the prescriptive tradition, ‘the rules’ are presented as a single set of rules that distinguish Standard from Non-standard English and ‘the Educated’ from the uneducated. But the logic of this system also suggests that those who know and use even more rules can be judged superior to those who know only a few. Since the rewards of this system depend on differences, they could be applied, in principle, to any situation where difference is found. In principle, knowing and following more rules could continue to define many separate groups, depending on how many more rules those groups know than other groups. In practice, however, we seem to be dealing with just two groups, those who follow enough rules to be considered to use Standard English and those who are particularly committed to knowing and following more rules, or the ‘some readers’. Since people in this group see rewards for knowing the tradition better than others, there need to be touchstones, shibboleths if you will, to mark that difference in knowledge. It is little wonder that there would be a class of rules (like the aforementioned contact), which apparently do not distinguish Standard English from non-Standard English but are still important to ‘some readers’. Such rules help identify those people who are most committed to the tradition. When we take this group of ‘some readers’ into account, we see that our formulations of the rewards of using prescriptive rules given in (11) and (12) are too simple. We actually have a two-tiered system as given in (14) and (15). (14) The use of prescribed variants is thought to characterise Standard English, which in turn is thought to index the superior qualities of those who use Standard English. (15) The use of even more prescribed variants is thought to characterise Standard English more accurately, which in turn is thought to be a better index to the superior qualities of those who use this characterisation of Standard English. As the wordiness of (15) suggests, this extra tier is not readily recognised. Even though writers have needed to talk about the additional group of ‘some readers’, they have lacked a standard terminology to do so. To a considerable degree, the extra tier has been effaced, and the simpler formulation given in (14) has been used to discuss both kinds of rules – those that actually distinguish Standard English from non-Standard English and those that distinguish the cognoscenti from the uninitiated. That is why the quotation that began this chapter can claim that the proscribed form of contact is still part of Standard English, while saying ‘some readers’ will object to that form.

246

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

The Role of Traditions in Naturalising Assumptions This effacing of the extra level is another phenomenon readily explained by the working of traditions. One of the central ways that traditions ensure acceptance of their assumptions is by making their assumptions seem natural. This feeling of ‘settledness’ – of a rule already having been established – is an important feature of traditions. Because the traditum is felt as given, it is easier – natural, in fact – to accept. As Shils (1981) puts it, Human beings become attached to the given. It becomes to them the ‘natural way’ to do things. Being ‘natural’ is nearly the same as being normative and obligatory, once a pattern is accepted as ‘natural’. (Shils, 1981: 200) The rules are meant to be normative, and an important buttress for their normative force is their naturalness that comes from their being part of a tradition.

Labels for reified entities We can see how much the assumptions of (15) have been effaced when we note how much the assumptions of (14) have been reified, and we can see how much those assumptions have been reified by popular reference to them. The first element, prescriptive rules, is usually known simply as ‘the Rules’. Much like how we refer to ‘the Dictionary’ without specifying which one, so we refer to ‘the Rules’ without bothering to specify which ones, even though over 10,000 prescriptive rules have been recorded (by my own tabulation of 30 handbooks) since Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage was published in 1926. The term ‘Standard English’, like ‘good English’ or ‘proper English’, has also become reified, as a widely used label for the target of the prescriptive rules, as formulated in (12). The notion of Standard English is complex (see Bex & Watts, 1999), of course, and a few handbooks have tried to define Standard English as an operational term for usage discussions (Ebbitt & Ebbitt [1990], Wilson [1996], Garner [2009] are notable examples), but the term is still frequently used without regard to those complexities and simply as a label for prescribed variants, as it seems to be in the following passage: (16) Snuck is a non-standard past tense and past participle of sneak common in American speech and writing. The standard past form is sneaked. (Garner, 2009, s.v. ‘snuck’; bold emphasis on ‘snuck’ is original)

Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional

247

Statements, both in books and in common parlance, claiming that certain forms are ‘standard’ routinely take both the notion of ‘Standard English’ and its application for granted. Similarly, the term ‘Educated’ has been reified to refer to that group thought to have superior qualities because they use prescribed forms. Again, this group is not defined very precisely. Just how much education is required for a person to be considered ‘educated’ is never addressed; instead, a group of ‘educated’ people is assumed.

Labels for effaced entities By contrast, the assumptions in (15) have not been reified. References to these assumptions occur just often enough for us to notice them if we know what to look for, but the labels for them have an ad hoc quality. For the first entity – rules that go beyond defining Standard English and instead identify loyal insiders – it is difficult to find any precise terms. In the usage handbooks, we run into the terms ‘traditional rules’ or ‘shibboleths’, which sometimes seem to refer to these extra rules, though sometimes not. In scholarly commentary on prescriptivism, we occasionally run into a label for rules that are important for ‘some readers’, such as ‘Bête Noires’ (Williams, 1995: 190). Names for the second entity in the formulation – the language – have also been varied, though handbook editors often use ‘formal’ and ‘edited’ as labels for language that favours more rules: (17) In strict formal usage unique means ‘single,’ ‘sole,’ ‘unequaled’ and consequently is not compared. (Ebbitt & Ebbitt, 1990, s.v. ‘unique’) (18) The rule that infinitives should not be split makes good sense when the interruption is lengthy […]. Formal stylists avoid even those. (Ebbitt & Ebbitt, 1990, s.v. ‘split infinitive’) (19) Different than has been much criticized by commentators but is nonetheless Standard at most levels except for some Edited English. (Wilson, 1993, s.v. ‘different from, different than, different to’) The third entity from (15) refers to the group of people characterised by their knowledge and use of certain prescriptive rules. The quotations discussed above have already introduced some of the labels for this group, such as ‘some readers’, ‘purists’ or ‘traditionalists’. Several more labels are used that likewise characterise this group: (20) Labels used in usage manuals: some readers, commentators, traditionalists, those who know better, grammarians, (formal / traditional / conservative) stylists, purists, insufferable precisians

248

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

(Garner), stalwarts (Garner), prescribers (Garner), language aficionados (Garner) (21) Labels used in scholarly commentary: Shamans (Bolinger), Mavens (Pinker), TOTELarians (Trimble),2 SNOOTs (Wallace), Usageasters (Algeo), Rule-mongers (Williams) Whatever else these labels apply to, they very likely apply to the type of people who pride themselves on being more careful and knowledgeable about language. My personal favourite is the backformation SNOOT introduced by Wallace. This word captures the pride shading into condescension for knowing more rules; unfortunately, it is still probably too disparaging and facetious to gain general use, though Wallace applied it to himself and Garner promotes it in his usage handbook (s.v. ‘snoot’). Whether known as ‘some readers’, SNOOTs or ‘traditionalists’, this group is probably a subset of the more reified group referred to as ‘the Educated’. Practically all people who consider themselves knowledgeable about prescriptive rules (‘some readers’) will also consider themselves educated, in whatever way ‘educated’ is defined. But even among the ‘some readers’, there is additional complexity. Within this group there are subgroups with varying allegiance to the rules. At the most general level, there are those who take pride in following the rules. They are the followers. A subset of the followers consists of the enforcers – those who change copy, like editors, or penalise proscribed forms, like teachers – also described as ‘agents of regulation and imposition – the teachers’ (Bourdieu, 1991: 45). A further subset consists of the pronouncers, those who actually codify the rules or lay down the usage laws – described as a ‘body of jurists – the grammarians’ (Bourdieu, 1991: 45). These include writers and editors of usage handbooks, bloggers or newspaper columnists who tell readers what is and isn’t correct. Figure 15.1 is given as nested subsets, because those who make the rules will presumably enforce and use the rules and those who enforce the rules will also follow the rules. Of course, these subcategories should not be regarded as rigid or impermeable. Sometimes, followers openly criticise the proscribed forms they hear, for example, and thus become enforcers. But it remains clear that different subgroups act differently from each other, yet we lack precise labels for them, even when writers wish to discuss any subgroups of ‘the Educated’. Perhaps the least clear boundary remains that between ‘the Educated’ and the ‘some readers’ groups. Undoubtedly, most people in the latter group see themselves as part of ‘the Educated’ group. They likely see their own efforts to use and even enforce prescriptive rules as the same as any other educated person, whether that is to use Standard English, protect language, enhance communication, improve clarity or elegance, present themselves as educated or several other justifications that have

Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional

249

The Educated Followers Enforcers

Prescribers

Figure 15.1 Subgroups of ‘some readers’

been given for following rules. Only some of them (and only some of the time) would admit that they are really trying to distinguish themselves from other educated speakers. It is little wonder that the boundaries have been effaced and that the labels for this group have been ad hoc and imprecise. It is this lack of precision and distinction that has made the tradition effective. By effacing the differences between ‘the Educated’ and ‘some readers’, the tradition is allowed to claim all the benefits of using Standard English for this variety defined by even more rules. This tour through other labels should have shown that the entities of (15) are sufficiently important for writers to feel the need to refer to them and that the assumptions of (15) have been effaced to the degree that there is no regular label for them. Instead, the labels for (14) are allowed to serve for any kind of rule, including rules meant to identify the true followers of the tradition. The effacement in (15) has proved useful for maintaining the tradition of prescriptive rules and their rewards. This tradition will prove durable as long as the rewards of using these prescriptive rules are viewed as natural and not constructed or artificially maintained. As with other robust traditions, naturalising these concepts is important for the tradition’s success. That is why ‘some readers’ are rarely explicitly acknowledged. If the rewards are going to be trusted, we cannot allow them to apply only to ‘some readers’.

250

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Conclusion If we recall the contact rule in (1), it seems that certain rules are apparently important for some readers but not for others. In other words, for some rules, the so-called ‘wrong’ or proscribed forms do not really disqualify a piece of writing from being Standard English, yet there will still be ‘some readers’ who think they do. I expect that few people will want to acknowledge these extra rules or this extra level of standard. Those who pay attention to prescriptive rules probably think that the rules they find important are important for everyone else. Lynch captures this notion well: If others observe fewer rules than we do, they’re dullards; if they observe more, they’re pedants. Nearly all the people who care about language are convinced they’ve found the sweet spot between the know-nothings and the know-it-alls. (Lynch, 2009: 115) But I think that the existence of these know-it-alls is not an accident; instead, it follows naturally from the operation of tradition and the logic embedded in the rewards of using prescriptive rules. The wealth of labels simply indicates a need to define this group of people who are more than usually committed to the rules. Members of this group may have professional standing that depends on their adherence to the rules, such as editors, or they may simply take more pride in their ability to follow the rules. Recognising the existence of this group is crucial for evaluating particular rules. If some rules really do stand out to those who consider themselves particularly good with rules, it would be good to know which rules they are. And if following those same rules does no more than identify a person as one of the ‘some readers’ – without adding to the clarity of a person’s style, for example, or distinguishing that person’s language from the language of ‘uneducated’ people – that would be good to know as well. In trying to come to terms with this group of rules that are important for some but not for others, I have found an approach through tradition to be illuminating. As I have argued, there are three key ways that the workings of traditions help account for this extra group of people and rules. First, traditions provide a reified traditum to be transferred across generations. The individual prescriptive rules are certainly an important part of this traditum, but so are the attitudes that legitimise and valorise those rules. So regardless of how important or unimportant any particular prescriptive rule is for improving communication, it can still be important within the tradition itself. Second, traditions help create and identify communities. Those who show more loyalty and allegiance to a tradition will stand out from those who show less. Although following prescriptive rules is popularly thought to protect or improve the English language, a

Stalwarts, SNOOTS and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional

251

more certain social function of this practice is to identify those who think that following the prescriptive rules is important. As Lynch (2009: 18) puts it, the rules are ‘the secret handshake of the hypereducated’. Not only are rules passed down that are thought to distinguish Standard English from non-Standard English, but there are also rules passed down that distinguish the insiders from the amateurs. Those who pride themselves in knowing ‘the Rules’ can further distinguish themselves by learning the rules that ‘some readers’ find important. Third, the operation of traditions helps explain why these groups of rules and people are not more forthrightly acknowledged. Traditions work better when their assumptions are naturalised. Thus, the terms implying universal acceptance – ‘the Rules’, ‘Standard English’ and ‘the Educated’ – have become reified, while terms evoking the self-referential nature of the rewards of using prescriptive rules have been effaced. It shouldn’t be surprising that the reified terms are allowed to stand in place of the effaced terms, since prescriptive rules gain importance from being thought to define Standard English and identify ‘the Educated’ (rather than being thought to define a hyperstandard of English and identify a group of loyal followers). So ‘some readers’ are not just any readers. They constitute an important group within the prescriptive tradition, and they help us identify a group of rules that have been particularly validated by the operation of the prescriptive tradition. While it may not be easy to identify this group or these rules, the abundant references to them in usage manuals and other language guides suggest that we should not ignore them. They are important in any discussion of the importance of particular prescriptive rules. Indeed, recognising the importance of ‘some readers’ becomes easier when we realise that they follow naturally from the logic of the prescriptive tradition and the workings of tradition in general. That’s why it makes sense to speak of them and their rules as ‘traditional’.

Notes (1) (2)

Bold emphasis in quotations has been added throughout this chapter. TOTEL: ‘The One True English Language’.

References Algeo, J. (1991) Sweet are the usages of diversity. Word 42, 1–17. American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Andersson, L. and Trudgill, P. (1990) Bad Language. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Battistella, E.L. (2009) Do You Make These Mistakes in English? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bex, T. and Watts, R.J. (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate. London: Routledge. Bolinger, D. (1980) Language, the Loaded Weapon: The Use and Abuse of Language Today. London: Longman. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. (J.B. Thompson [ed.], G. Raymond and M. Adamson [transl.]). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

252

Part 3: Usage Guides: An English Tradition

Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge. Copperud, R. (1980) American Usage and Style: The Consensus. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Ebbitt, D.R. and Ebbitt, W.R. (1990) Index to English (8th edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garner, B. (2009) Garner’s Modern American Usage (3rd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joseph, J.E. (1987) Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. New York: Blackwell. Lynch, J. (2009) The Lexicographer’s Dilemma: The Evolution of ‘Proper’ English from Shakespeare to South Park. New York: Walker. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage (1994) Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. Peters, P. and Young, W. (1997) English grammar and the lexicography of usage. Journal of English Linguistics 25, 315–331. Pinker, S. (1995) The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper Perennial. Shils, E. (1981) Tradition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Trimble, J.R. (2011) Writing with Style: Conversations on the Art of Writing (3rd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wallace, D.F. (2006) Authority and American usage. In D. Wallace (ed.) Consider the Lobster and Other Essays (pp. 66–127). New York: Little, Brown. Williams, J.M. (1995) Style: Toward Clarity and Grace. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, K.G. (1996) The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press.

Part 4 Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

16 ‘Goodbye, Sweet England’: Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media Martin Gill

Englishness in Times of Crisis Addressing members of his own Conservative party in 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron highlighted the ‘discomfort and disjointedness’ experienced by inhabitants of ‘real communities’ faced with an influx of ‘new people’ unable to speak their language and ‘not really wanting or even willing to integrate’ (Cameron, 2011; cf. Gill, 2014). In an effort to reassure supporters restive at his government’s perceived failure to address rising levels of immigration, the speech drew attention to the measures it had introduced against abuses such as sham marriages and bogus colleges. More tellingly, it deployed familiar tropes of British (English) national self-imagining: Real communities are bound by common experiences […] forged by friendship and conversation […] knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time. Cameron’s vision of authentic Britain, with its homely routines, overwhelmed by non-English-speaking foreigners who neither know nor care about them, echoes those of George Orwell ([1941] 1954) and John Major (1993) at earlier moments of crisis, when the nation’s integrity seemed to be threatened by external dangers (devastation by Hitler’s forces in Orwell’s case, the imagined encroachment on British liberties by post-Maastricht Europe in Major’s); and like them, he implies that it is the close-knit ordinariness of the English community that offers its strongest defence.1 The Englishness invoked through the diversity of these images is not one that invites change

255

256

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

or enlargement; in fact, paradoxically, these features are just what have kept the nation inviolate despite overwhelming odds. Politically, Cameron’s speech was an acknowledgement of public demand for tougher immigration policies orchestrated principally by the tabloid press. Under pressure from populist discourses of this kind, many countries have witnessed the rise of nationalist parties, monocultural ideologies, enforcement of language requirements for immigrants and efforts to portray the national speech community as fixed, homogeneous and monolingual (cf. Gal, 2006: 15). That such ideas can flourish across Europe, regardless of a social reality in which hybrid linguistic and ethnic identities are commonplace, underlines both the power of the rhetorical resources involved and the need for critical attention to their proliferation in everyday discourse. Throughout their history, the news media have provided a context in which language ideologies are reproduced and naturalised, often in the service of national differentiation (Couldry, 2010; Gal & Irvine, 1995). As this chapter will illustrate, they retain a key role in articulating to a mass audience the norms of the national speech community and criteria for authentic membership.

Popular News Media and the Representation of English The national speech community Today, the fragmentation of news media, the extension of print and broadcast journalism online and the rise of social media have blurred the boundaries between news producers and news consumers, expert and popular opinion, vernacular and institutional voices. The internet has also changed the dynamics of international news flows (Lagneau et al., 2013), and extended audiences’ ability to respond either directly to journalists or to related comment forums, and initiate (sometimes monopolise) further discussion, affording a public floor to vernacular voices that previously would not have been widely heard. Despite these changes, traditional news media continue to wield institutional authority and saturate daily life. In the British context, they exert a powerful influence at a national level from fixed (predominantly right of centre) ideological positions, not only on political priorities and public perception of what issues matter (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007), but also on the terms in which those issues are framed, constituting what Wodak (2008: 73) calls an ‘almost monolithic belief system’, more often characterised by epistemic closure than serious discussion. Even a brief review will show that language issues are featured regularly. It would be easy to dismiss tabloid journalism as populist and sensational,

Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media

257

a waste of scholarly time; yet, while we may despair at the ignorance of language displayed by many contributors, including journalists, who hold strong views about it, the extensive coverage is evidence of an interest that extends well beyond the sphere of academic linguistics. To the extent that public attitudes and understanding emerge in dialogue with popular discourses of this kind (de Vreese et al., 2011; Stewart et al., 2011), sociolinguists should at least be aware of how language issues and ideological debates are mediated by them. It is in these contexts that essentialised ideas of nation, belonging and, by extension, linguistic boundary maintenance – or what, following Billig (1995), can be termed banal ethnolinguistic nationalism – are naturalised for a mass audience. Here, just as in Cameron’s nostalgic evocation, Britain (or more usually England) is imagined as a stable, homogeneous, anglophone community, under threat from disruptive social forces both within and without, a vision constantly realised and recirculated in discourses of identity and exclusion, and demarcated by the boundary between ‘us/here’ and ‘them/elsewhere’, to which ideologies of language are central (cf. Flores, 2003).

The study This chapter examines the role of news discourse about language in drawing the rhetorical borders of the British speech community and promoting prescriptivism at a macro level by positioning a variety of ‘others’ in relation to normative ‘Britishness’. Between January and April 2013, 62 news articles on a total of 30 language-related stories, together with reader comments, were collected from popular online news sources (the BBC, Mail, Express, Independent, Telegraph, Guardian), although as these were often embedded in thematically related sequences, the number of texts relevant to the analysis was higher. The initial research questions were: (1) What language issues and debates are featured in mainstream British news reports? (2) What ideas about language emerge there? Posing the questions in this way might seem to imply that the main concern of the news media is the authoritative transmission of factual information to a disinterested audience. In reality, the ‘news story’ is a journalistic construct, framed by multiple (often unattributed) authors and liable to reframing and elaboration across the world’s media more or less unanchored by reference to whatever count as its originating ‘facts’ (cf. Gamson et al., 1992). Stories in the popular press often seem less concerned with informing their potential audience than with confirming

258

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

convictions or provoking predictable responses. With this in mind, the questions guiding this study could be rephrased as: (3) How are stories about language made to satisfy the criteria of news editors? (4) What ideologies of language are apparent in them? Unlike ‘the economy’, ‘politics’, ‘education’, ‘health’ and so on, language is not an established news category with a clear discursive space of its own; hence, journalists tend to be less concerned with stories’ linguistic details than with how they intersect with other, more central themes. In the case of English, the real news interest tends to focus on the anxieties for which the language is a surrogate: above all, questions of national identification, legitimacy and the integrity of the national community; and, as has been observed of news more generally, most of it is bad (Shoemaker, 2006; Shoemaker & Cohen, 2006). With few exceptions, it has far less to say about the fascinating linguistic variety to be found in contemporary Britain, the complexities of multilingualism or the many ways in which language users achieve mutual understanding than about chaotic change, breakdown of communication and debasement of standards. Its dominant message seems to be that, thanks to lazy speakers (especially the young), new technologies and the influx of foreigners speaking no English, language norms are being eroded and taking the fabric of British society with them.

‘Expert’ versus ‘lay’ perspectives Given the apparent level of interest, there is a surprising lack of linguistically informed journalism in this corpus, and little attempt to broaden public access to contemporary discussion in linguistics or sociolinguistics. Even the commonplace assumptions of descriptive linguistics hardly seem to have made much headway, still less the more recent work to de-essentialise the relationship between language, nation and identity; and, while ‘scientific’ research from a variety of fields is sometimes cited, linguistic scholarship barely figures at all (in this sense, Julia Snell’s contribution to the Independent, discussed in the section ‘Middlesbrough vernacular’ (p. 264), is exceptional). Where it occurs, expert discourse is not merely translated into a more accessible register, but is journalistically reframed within a very different set of ideological assumptions, often in ways that tend to neutralise its authority – for example, by presenting expert views as equivalent to those of partisan pressure groups, or as trumped by ‘common sense’. Scepticism is heightened by an editorial demand for novelty that favours stories featuring controversial or counter-intuitive claims, without reference to accepted understanding; moreover, in the tabloid press, these items sometimes seem expressly chosen to amuse or shock.

Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media

259

Serious commentators are likewise absent from the anonymous message boards that accompany news articles (cf. more traditional ‘letters to the editor’); and in these contexts expertise in linguistics is never claimed as a basis for authority (cf. Jaffe, 2013). Distrust of experts is, notoriously, endemic in British popular culture; but in the case of language, where relevant knowledge seems to be accessible to all, experts can be seen as superfluous, or (worse) as promoting liberal, ‘dogma-driven’ agendas of their own (see the section ‘Middlesbrough vernacular’ p. 264). As a result, news discourse about language provides a space in which popular language ideologies and ‘common-sense’ attitudes are shaped and naturalised, more or less unmodified by expert commentary. In what follows, these points and their implications will be exemplified through an examination of four contrasting stories from the data, to show how, far from challenging popular assumptions, news media tend to reinforce dominant discourses, especially with regard to the linguistic boundaries of the state and notions of legitimate speakerhood.

Four News Stories Manx revival In January 2013, an article on the BBC news website celebrated the ‘extraordinary renaissance’ of Manx, ‘condemned as a dead language’ by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), but now being learnt actively by many, in particular incomers to the Isle of Man from mainland Britain [1]. 2 A 76-year-old Manx speaker is quoted as saying ‘[I]t’s definitely a positive sign when you can speak our native language in a pub and not get in a brawl – that to me has to be a sign of progress’. Manx is presented as a natural, authenticating feature of its context, affording a British audience a glimpse of marginal ‘otherness’, a frisson of difference within the safety of first language Englishness. The BBC’s online coverage includes a clip from television news featuring Bunscoill Ghaelgagh, a Manx-medium primary school and its pupils, who had written – in Manx – to UNESCO to point out that Manx was not at all a dead language, but ‘alive and kicking’. In this coverage, two young pupils are featured, commenting ‘it’s very special to me to be able to do this’; ‘you get that sort of satisfaction that I’m keeping a language alive and I’m helping’. In place of the stories of language death that feature regularly on the BBC web pages (for example [2]–[4]), here is a modest cause for celebration – Manx is still with us, and in good hands, helping to preserve an image of the diversity of Britain’s linguistic landscape at its wilder margins. In contrast to the helplessness and age of ‘last speakers’, this is a story about youth and agency, both collective and individual, of

260

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

resistance to language shift and the destructive forces of modernity. The children quoted emphasise their role in ‘doing their bit’ for the language; if Manx survives, it is implied, it will be thanks to the deliberate choices of speakers (or would-be speakers) such as these. Revival stories have a strong appeal: old prejudices are being overcome, and a space opened in which the place of language as a key aspect of Manx identity can be proclaimed. Though spoken by only a tiny fraction of the Manx population (1,527 out of 76,315, or 2%, according to the 2001 census; Clague, 2009), Manx is presented as the community’s ‘native language’, so that learning it – however minimally – will help to put speakers in touch with its ‘authentic’ nature. It can be added to English without cost, no one is excluded (the efforts of the English incomers are vital) and its revival reflects both positive personal choices and praiseworthy local initiative. During the same period, children at two other primary schools, to all appearances no less linguistically committed, became the focus of intense, but less consistently positive, media interest.

Gladstone Primary In February 2013, Gladstone Primary School in Peterborough, the first school in Britain, as the Daily Mail put it, ‘where every single pupil is “foreign” and speaks English as a second language’ [5] (only the inverted commas around ‘foreign’ signalling that almost all of them were born in the UK), reported an improvement in its rating by Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education) from inadequate to good in the space of just 14 months. These facts helped to make it a story that was taken up across the media, although reports differed predictably about its implications (for example, [6]–[8]). In the Daily Mail’s version, the ostensible story is ‘good news’. An accompanying photograph shows the head teacher surrounded by children, clearly from non-English backgrounds, all smiling up at the camera. She is quoted as saying that ‘More and more of the world is going bilingual. The culture at our school is not to see bilingualism as a difficulty’. Yet, this positive message is at once subverted by an unmistakable discourse of ‘otherness’: Some 358 of the 440 pupils were raised speaking Punjabi Urdu, according to Department for Education figures. The language is used in parts of Pakistan and India. Another 23 are fluent in Dari, which is used in Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan. There are 15 Lithuanians and 11 Latvians, while other languages include Portuguese, Polish, Slovakian, Czech, Gujarati, Russian, German, Pashto, French, Arabic and four African dialects.

Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media

261

The roll call of ‘exotic’ languages, occurring twice in this short text, leaves no doubt that most of the pupils are children of Muslim and east-European immigrants; moreover, a shift into population statistics in the continuation suggests that the real story here is not the school’s improvement but the rapidly changing demography of Peterborough, ‘now believed to be the fastest growing multi-ethnic community in Britain’: Peterborough City Council said more than 100 languages are spoken in the area. More than a third of pupils speak English as a second language, up from one in five in 2008. The city’s Conservative MP, Stewart Jackson, has warned that it is struggling to cope with the new arrivals. More are expected as families leave London because of the Government’s cap on housing benefits. In the light of this unequal struggle, the true significance of Gladstone Primary is unmistakable: this is just the first of potentially many such ‘Tower of Babel’ schools where native English speakers are a vanishing minority: in no time, the sea of happy non-English faces will become a deluge (cf. also [9]). This was the point to which many online comments responded, with reactions such as ‘Goodbye, sweet England’, ‘OMG. What have they done to our once great nation […]?’. Yet, more importantly, the story is hardly ‘news’. Most readers (at least, those comprising the imagined community of Daily Mail readers) know that in this newspaper references to linguistic diversity at school will be framed within a strongly normative belief in English monolingualism to which – thanks to mass immigration – foreign languages represent an imminent threat. They know this above all because the Mail regularly features such stories. Its relentless insistence on this topic, and emphasis on ‘shocking’ statistics, is clear from its headlines over the previous 18 months (Table 16.1). Such stories invoke familiar stereotypes for an audience primed and waiting to react. Exotic languages index speakers’ irreducible otherness, regardless of their likely competence in English as an additional language, simultaneously defining a ‘natural’ boundary and marking its transgression, a noisy irruption of ‘them’/’elsewhere’ into the simple, monolingually English world of ‘us’/’here’, and confirming their speakers’ lack of legitimate claim on British goodwill and resources (a point that readers’ comments repeatedly emphasise).

Census data A closely related story that swept through the British media at this time was the finding from the 2011 census of England and Wales that (according to the BBC headline): ‘138,000 speak no English’ [10], and

262

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Table 16.1 Headlines from the Daily Mail One in four primary school pupils are from an ethnic minority and almost a million schoolchildren do not speak English as their first language (22.06.2011) The school where pupils speak 44 languages ([…] including Zulu) (21.07.2011) The primary school where just FOUR pupils out of over 400 speak English as mother tongue (04.08.2011) Primary school where just 26 out of 700 pupils speak English as their first language (28.02.2012) Children who speak English as their main language at home are now in the MINORITY in 1600 schools across Britain (22.03.2012) The Home Counties primary school where less than 1% of pupils speak English as their first language (30.04.2012) The chattering classes: The British primary school where pupils speak 31 different languages (07.06.2012) English a second language to one million pupils as record one in six children don’t speak it at home (21.06.2012) English is foreign tongue for up to a quarter of London households (13.12.2012) Primary school where two-thirds of children speak English as a second language gets 100% pass rate in exams (18.12.2012) Revealed: The language map where up to 40% of people say English is not their mother tongue (31.01.2013) British primary school where every single pupil is ‘foreign’ and speaks English as a second language (but it still received a glowing report from Ofsted) (24.02.2013) Tower of Babel primary: An inspirational visit to the school where no pupils speak English as a first language reveals a town at breaking point (01.03.2013) English is a second language to one in 13: More than 100 dialects are spoken by large numbers of people in the UK (04.03.2013)

that Polish was now the second most widely spoken language. Oddly, given the BBC’s standing as impartial national broadcaster, this headline foregrounds one of the smallest groups in the census data. As presented by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), on which the BBC report is based, it is the smallness of the figure that is highlighted, in the context of statistics indicating overwhelming nationwide competence in English [11]: • • •

92% (49.8 million) of usual residents aged three years and over spoke English (English or Welsh in Wales) as their main language. Of the 8% (4.2 million) of usual residents aged three years and over with a main language other than English, 79% (3.3 million) could speak English very well or well. In 2011, less than 0.5% (138,000) of all usual residents aged three years and over could not speak English.

Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media

•

263

The second most reported main language was Polish (1%, 546,000), followed by Panjabi (0.5%, 273,000) and Urdu (0.5%, 269,000).

However, the BBC’s headline unerringly anticipated the dominant reading given to figures such as these, as immediately becomes clear from their treatment in the tabloid news media. Under the headline ‘Migrants shun the English language: more than four million cannot or rarely speak English’ [12], 3 the Daily Express puts it bluntly: In figures showing the stark impact of years of mass immigration, one million barely use English with a staggering 138,000 unable to utter a word of it. The findings, released by the Office for National Statistics, show how much the face of the UK has changed with a patchwork quilt of languages covering the country. Polish is now the second language spoken by 546,000 people, reflecting the huge influx of Poles during the last decade. And in some areas up to four out of 10 people only speak English as a second language. Last night experts warned of the potential damage to local communities and one said: ‘Those who want to live in Britain should make an effort to learn to speak English’. The ‘experts’ quoted include representatives of the TaxPayers’ Alliance and MigrationWatch, but no one with a relevant background in sociolinguistics, who could have pointed to the contradiction involved in insisting on the one hand that potential residents should ‘make an effort to learn to speak English’, while, on the other, decrying the large numbers who ‘only’ speak English as a second language. But this, perhaps, is the most telling point: as far as the Express is concerned, there is no contradiction. Far from being an asset, second language English is hardly English at all: to belong, migrants need to know English as their first language. Not to speak English can be represented as a deliberate act of disalignment, proof of migrants’ laziness, arrogance and unwillingness to ‘make the effort’ to fit in (and the effort is always theirs to make; cf. Gill, 2012), if not determination to impose their own cultures and languages on ‘us’. Polish English or Panjabi English are a blight, foreignising familiar surroundings with alien signage and making the ‘native’ majority feel uncomfortable in their own homes (as Cameron’s speech suggested). As Stephen Pollard comments, also in the Daily Express [14]: When signs start appearing on shops not in English but in Polish or another language it starts to feel as if one’s country is being taken over. It is not racist to feel like that, it is a natural human emotion […]

264

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

The essential connection assumed here between the place and its native language sufficiently accounts for this feeling of alienation. As such, it is nothing like racism, but a justifiable – even laudable – attachment to ‘our’ communities; what is unnatural is ‘their’ obstinate refusal to understand this.

Middlesbrough vernacular Another story widely covered in the data focused on a group of primary school children outwardly similar to those at Bunscoill Ghaelgagh discussed in the section ‘Manx revival’. But the pupils of the Sacred Heart school in Middlesbrough are not represented as speaking (still less, as doing their bit to promote) a valued local variant of English, but (to quote The Telegraph [15]) as victims of ‘bad habits’ they have ‘picked up’, a debased form of ‘street language’ that can only have damaging consequences for them, and from which – in the view of their head teacher – they need to be rescued. Carol Walker, the head teacher in question, had issued a list of 11 words and phrases she regarded as unacceptable (Table 16.2), and circulated it in a letter to parents, to be eradicated from their children’s linguistic repertoire. It is a miscellaneous (and, considering the media interest, surprisingly small) collection of items involving non-standard grammar, pronunciation and orthography, some ‘northern’, others more widespread. Yet neither this list, nor the validity of Carol Walker’s justification for promoting the written standard among her pupils in itself constitutes news; despite some misgivings (see below), the media commentary is broadly supportive of her efforts, if not necessarily her chosen strategy. The real story here is this head teacher’s symbolic (and defiantly unfashionable) act of norm enforcement, and it is the implications of this that take on a mediatised life Table 16.2 Carol Walker’s list of proscribed language (from [17]) Incorrect

Correct

I done that I seen that Yous ‘School finishes at free fifteen’ Gizit ere I dunno It’s nowt Letta, butta Your late Werk, shert He was sat there

I have done that or I did that I have seen that or I saw that The word is never plural ‘School finishes at three fifteen’ Please give me it I don’t know It’s nothing Letter, butter You’re late I will wear my shirt for work He was sitting there

Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media

265

of their own, resulting in the extensive coverage, including an interview with Carol Walker on Radio 4’s Today programme. In a clip from BBC television news, under the (misleading) headline ‘Middlesbrough school bans use of local dialect’ [16], the children have a chastened air quite different from that of their Manx-speaking counterparts. Of course, they too are presented as ‘doing well’ – no less eager to speak ‘standard’ than their peers were to speak Manx. However, their lack of ease is palpable, and highlights a basic paradox: in one context, a local variety can be a useful addition to the young speakers’ repertoire; in the other, it is a liability, something unclean picked up in the street. As quoted by The Telegraph [15], Carol Walker comments: ‘You don’t want the children to lose their identity, but you do want them to be able to communicate properly with people and be understood’ (although no evidence is offered to suggest that I dunno or free fifteen had been causing problems of intelligibility); but this potentially reasonable point is not clearly distinguished from others that are more questionable. One of the most striking details is the way in which the urge to correct others’ language is contagious. One child featured in the television report has realised that he has gained new authority: ‘My sister’s been saying “I dunno”. So I say “you don’t know”’. It is less clear what their parents or other members of staff thought of this initiative (although, according to the BBC, Carol Walker claimed there had been ‘no “negative reaction” at all’ [17]). A parent is quoted by The Telegraph [15] as having been shocked at first, but now being in favour, adding ‘My eldest son said “yeah” last night and my youngest said “it’s yes,” so he corrected him’. Whether or not these children had learnt to distinguish between the ‘language of the street’ and ‘standard English’, they were quickly acquiring the more basic point that the right to correct flows one way only – yes is not just standard for yeah but confers a critical social advantage; yeah-speakers need to be taught their errors as a moral duty. Carol Sarler’s article in the Express, headlined ‘Hooray for the Head who teaches correct English’ [18], leaves no doubt: What I hate, really really hate, about lazy, sloppy or simply incorrect language is that it is rude. To use language well is to display good manners: you take on the burden of making yourself as clear, precise and easy to understand as is possible […]. She continues: Why should anybody have to take the trouble to work out what exact word would have made you clearer than ‘like’ or ‘innit’, had you only made the extra effort to rummage for it, stuffed back there between your idle ears?

266

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

The pity of it is (as I would tell the Middlesbrough children in best Jean Brodie mode) that if you do make the effort, it will be well rewarded […]. In Sarler’s discourse of punishment and correction, these children find themselves translated from young users of non-standard English into undesirables in need of a sharp lesson. In the same newspaper, the popular television presenters Richard and Judy take up the theme [19]. One of them recalls a teacher who was equally insistent on correct English, adding: Like Middlesbrough’s Mrs. Walker, Mr. Parrot was not remotely interested in being politically correct. I suspect brilliant teachers never are. The only example cited is Mr Parrot’s stinging contempt for what he called the ‘Wewozzie Brigade’. These were the unfortunate souls who insisted on saying: ‘We was just going home, sir,’ instead of: ‘We were […] etc.’ No doubt, Mr Parrot was a stickler for ‘the rules’, which inevitably means some rules rather than others. Ignoring his pupils’ politeness, he unleashed his ‘stinging contempt’ on their choice of grammatical form. For him, they were not communicating persons: they were the Wewozzie Brigade – a rabble too lazy to find ‘we were’ between their idle ears. The ideology stridently articulated by these commentators is not of standard English as providing access to greater opportunities for young people but of the standard as central to the maintenance of civil society, to be safeguarded through rule-based schooling. We may celebrate what Clive Upton on the BBC’s Today programme website calls ‘the wonderful medley of 21st Century English speech’ [20]; but for sections of the media, where ‘the rules’ are concerned (by which is implied an entire social/ ethical formation), there is nothing picturesque to salvage as part of these children’s identity: their charmless errors threaten the foundations of social order. And, as usual, agency lies squarely with the young speakers themselves; for all their laziness, users of ‘lazy, sloppy or simply incorrect’ English do so wilfully and must take responsibility. English here is unitary, prescriptive, exclusive, indexical of ‘us’ as we ought to be (and once were), in which ‘good’ grammar furnishes a vision of rightness to which everyone should aspire. For their own good, these children need the likes of Mrs Walker and Mr Parrot to underline to them their marginal status with respect to the linguistic mainstream; but even while ‘correct’ English purports to offer them a route to establishment approval, it no less certainly helps to solidify the structure in which unreformed speakers will always be deficient – never

Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media

267

fully communicating persons, but Wewozzies, the lazy offspring of a disempowered underclass. It is here, however, that The Independent offers a rare instance of an expert commentary, publishing an article [21] highly critical of the implications of the school’s policy by Julia Snell, a sociolinguist familiar with language use in Teesside classrooms (cf. Snell, 2010). She concludes: Ultimately, it is not the presence or absence of non-standard forms in children’s speech that raise educational issues; rather, picking on nonstandard voices risks marginalising some children, and may make them less confident at school. Silencing pupils’ voices, even with the best intentions, is just not acceptable. Predictably, the comments that followed denounced Snell’s article and a long, supportive post by Peter Trudgill. According to one, this is ‘liberal bullying’, ‘dogma-driven opportunism’. For another, it is ‘typical of an academic’s view […]’. A third comments simply: ‘“Lecturer in Sociolinguistics”. That tells you all you need to know about Dr Snell and her opinions’. However, Snell’s intervention is remarkable not only because she engages head-on with these hostile comments, but also for the thoughtfulness of much of the rest of the discussion; evidence, albeit modest, that, when adequately informed, media coverage of language news can indeed stimulate serious dialogue.

Conclusion To speak Manx in the Isle of Man represents deliberate alignment with the timeless native language of the island; the children quoted are conscious of their role in helping to restore it, with the credit they accrue as a result. If those at Sacred Heart Primary had wondered why their linguistic choices were regarded with so much less favour, or why Manx was held up as rare and wonderful, while Teesside vernacular had to be driven from the classroom, it is hard to know how they could be adequately answered. Yet, despite provoking discussion around the importance of standard English, the media coverage (with the exception of Snell’s article mentioned above) offers little guidance on the issues, let alone informed comment. Indeed, like most such stories, this one tends to mobilise existing opinions rather than deepen understanding. To judge from the collected data, even serious news media rarely report linguistics research, or discuss the place of language in British social life, still less engage critically with lay opinions, while the popular press constantly plays to the ‘common sense’ responses of its imagined audience. These can be counted on to reinforce normative ideologies, the ethnolinguistic nationalism of everyday discourse about language, especially in relation to perceived threats to the British speech community.

268

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

The data naturally reflect the political sympathies of the British press, where the right predominates. Their generous coverage of language issues suggests that a concern with ‘the state of the language’, and a perception of language as one of the key fronts in the struggle to preserve ‘our’ identity, resonate with the nationalist attitudes of these newspapers. Language is a monolithic code (cf. Urciuoli, 1995: 526), a rampart to be reinforced against the waves of non-English-speaking incomers and substandardspeaking natives, a more or less inflexible attribute of speakers and a powerful marker of the ethnic, religious and cultural divisions between them, embedded in, but largely impervious to, other social phenomena. It is an index of the health of the national polity: respect for ‘the language’ – either in terms of getting its rules correct, or making the effort to learn it at all (understood as becoming monolingually English speaking, erasing the ‘alien’ language) – is a sign, if not a criterion, of commitment to the ‘real’ values of the place; by contrast, failure to speak it – including speaking English as a second language – can be construed as active disalignment, disqualifying those in question from membership of ‘our’ community and from authentic speakerhood. The prominence of populist discourses of exclusion in a period experiencing high levels of migration is depressingly predictable; however, equally stern treatment is handed out to the latter-day ‘Wewozzies’ of Middlesbrough, whose ignorance of standard English is taken to cut them off from mainstream social interaction. It is also notable that a preoccupation with these issues extends beyond the tabloids and the vernacular voices that fill their online comment pages to news coverage more generally: if not the strident attitudes, at least the terms of reference within which the issues are framed. As such, these belong to a more pervasive discourse of national self-definition, one that is less accessible to debate (cf. Billig, 1995). Even without overt political evaluation (as examples from the BBC’s online news pages show), non-English (or nonstandard English) language is consistently exoticised or treated as salient, indexical of areas of heightened identity marking and differentiation, hence of likely tension. In these stories, local phenomena become manifestations of broad cultural antagonisms, while their reiteration across the media, and extension through time in sometimes remorselessly repetitive intertextual sequences, or what Couldry (2010: 83) refers to as ‘a self-reinforcing process of legitimation’, serves to naturalise their boundary-drawing assumptions, and exclude other explanations for the perceived ‘discomfort’ of the ‘native’ population. In this way, news about language in the popular media forms a vital link in the ‘chains of authentication’ (Agha, 2003: 260) by which particular phrases, narratives and tropes are put into circulation, to be taken up in mainstream political discourses by politicians like David Cameron seeking popular approval. Challenging the basis of this ‘common sense’ will require

Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media

269

a serious effort, not only from journalists but, following Snell’s example, also from sociolinguists and others with relevant linguistic expertise, to find ways in which to communicate effectively with wider, often sceptical, audiences. As things stand, it is hard to feel optimistic of success.

Notes (1)

(2) (3)

George Orwell ([1941] 1954): ‘[t]he clatter of clogs in the Lancashire mill towns, the to-and-fro of the lorries on the Great North Road, the queues outside the Labour Exchanges, the rattle of pin-tables in the Soho pubs, the old maids biking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn mornings’; John Major (1993): ‘Britain […] the country of long shadows on cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers’. Numbers in square brackets refer to the sources of quotations like this one, provided at the end of this chapter. The four million figure, not otherwise mentioned in the Express article, presumably refers to the 8% who use a main language other than English, 79% of whom are recorded as speaking English ‘very well or well’. In a comment article on the same day, entitled ‘The shocking truth about immigration and society’ [13], this figure has become five million.

References Agha, A. (2003) The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23 (3–4), 231–273. Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage Publications. Cameron, D. (2011) Prime Minister’s address to Conservative party members on the government’s immigration policy. The Guardian (online edition). See http://www. guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/14/david-cameron-immigration-speech-full-text (accessed 15 January 2013). Clague, M. (2009) Manx language revitalization and immersion education. e-Keltoi Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, 2, 165–198. Couldry, N. (2010) Media discourse and the naturalization of categories. In R. Wodak and V. Koller (eds) Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere (pp. 67–88). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. de Vreese, C., Boomgaarden, H. and Semetko, H. (2011) (In)direct framing effects: The effects of news media framing on public support for Turkish membership in the European Union. Communication Research 38 (2), 179–205. Flores, L. (2003) Constructing rhetorical borders: Peons, illegal aliens, and competing narratives of immigration. Critical Studies in Media Communication 20 (4), 362–387. Gal, S. (2006) Migration, minorities and multilingualism: Language ideologies in Europe. In C. Mar-Molinero and P. Stevenson (eds) Language Ideologies, Policies and Practices: Language and the Future of Europe (pp. 13–27). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gal, S. and Irvine, J. (1995) The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research 62 (4), 967–1001. Gamson, W., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W. and Sasson, T. (1992) Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology 18, 373–393. Gill, M. (2012) Nativeness, authority, authenticity: The construction of belonging and exclusion in debates about English language proficiency and immigration in Britain. In C. Percy and M.C. Davidson (eds) Languages and Nation: Attitudes and Norms (pp. 271–291). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

270

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Gill, M. (2014) ‘Real communities’, rhetorical borders: Authenticating British identity in political discourse and on-line debate. In V. Lacoste, J. Leimgruber and T. Breyer (eds) Indexing Authenticity: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. FRIAS Linguae & Litterae series (pp. 324–342). Berlin: de Gruyter. Jaffe, A. (2013) Diverse voices, public broadcasts: Sociolinguistic representations in mainstream programming. In C. Upton and B. Davies (eds) Analyzing 21st Century British English: Conceptual and Methodological Aspects of the Voices Project (pp. 48–70). London: Routledge. Lagneau, E., Nicey, J., Palmer, M. and Rebillard, F. (2013) The social dynamics of sources and flows of news. Sur le journalisme, About journalism, Sobre jornalismo 2 (1), 14–23. Major, J. (1993) Speech to the Conservative group for Europe. See http://www.johnmajor. co.uk/page1086.html (accessed 15 January 2013). Orwell, G. ([1941] 1954) England Your England and Other Essays. London: Secker and Warburg. Scheufele, D. and Tewksbury, D. (2007) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57, 9–20. Shoemaker, P. (2006) News and newsworthiness: A commentary. Communications 31, 105–111. Shoemaker, P. and Cohen, A. (2006) News Around the World: Practitioners, Content and the Public. New York: Routledge. Snell, J. (2010) From sociolinguistic variation to socially strategic stylization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (5), 630–656. Stewart, C., Pitts, M. and Osborne, H. (2011) Mediated intergroup conflict: The discursive construction of ‘illegal immigrants’ in a regional U.S. newspaper. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 30 (1), 8–27. Urciuoli, B. (1995) Language and borders. Annual Review of Anthropology 24, 525–546. Wodak, R. (2008) ‘Us’ and ‘Them’: Inclusion and exclusion – discrimination via discourse. In G. Delanty, R. Wodak and P. Jones (eds) Identity, Belonging and Migration (pp. 54–77). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Language, Nation and Normativity in Popular British News Media

271

Appendix: News Articles Referred to (All References are to the Online Editions) [1] BBC News Magazine. Manx: Bringing a language back from the dead (31 January 2013). See http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21242667 [2] Haviland, C. (2008) The last of Nepal’s Dura speakers. BBC News South Asia, 15 January. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7189898.stm [3] BBC News Americas. Last Alaska language speaker dies (24 January 2008). See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7206411.stm [4] BBC News Scotland. Cromarty fisherfolk dialect’s last native speaker has died (2 October 2012). See http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-19802616 [5] Levy, A. (2013) British primary school where every single pupil is ‘foreign’ and speaks English as a second language (but it still received a glowing report from Ofsted). Mail Online, 24 February. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283696/ Primary-school-ALL-440-pupils-speak-English-second-language-receives-glowingOfsted-report.html [6] Barkham, P (2013). The school where they speak 20 languages: A day at Gladstone Primary. Guardian (on line edition), 28 February. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/ education/2013/feb/28/school-20-languages-gladstone-primary [7] Hill, P. (2013) This is what’s gone wrong with Britain. Daily Express, 26 February. See http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/peter-hill/380177/This-iswhat-s-gone-wrong-with-Britain [8] Hughes, T. (2013) School where all pupils speak English as a second language. Daily Express, 25 February. See http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/380037/ School-where-all-pupils-speak-English-as-a-second-language [9] Fryer, J. (2013) Tower of Babel primary: An inspirational visit to the school where no pupils speak English as a first language reveals a town at breaking point. Mail Online, 1 March. 2013. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286798/ Gladstone-Primary-School-An-inspirational-visit-school-pupils-speak-Englishlanguage-reveals-town-breaking-point.html [10] BBC News UK. 138,000 speak no English – census (30 January 2013). See http:// www.bbc.com/news/uk-21259401 [11] Office for National Statistics. Statistical bulletin: 2011 Census: Quick statistics for England and Wales, March 2011 (30 January 2013). See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/ rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-and-quick-statistics-for-wards-and-outputareas-in-england-and-wales/STB-2011-census--quick-statistics-for-england-andwales--march-2011.html [12] Daily Express. Migrants shun the English language, Sarah O’Grady (31 January 2013). See http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/374550/Migrants-shun-the-English-language [13] Daily Express. The shocking truth about immigration and society (31 January 2013). See http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/374502/The-shockingtruth-about-immigration-and-society [14] Pollard, S. (2013) If we don’t have a common language we will all suffer. Daily Express, 1 February. See http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/374795/ If-we-don-t-have-a-common-language-we-will-all-suffer [15] Furness, H. (2013) Middlesbrough primary school issues list of ‘incorrect’ words. Daily Telegraph, 5 February. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ primaryeducation/9851236/Middlesbrough-primary-school-issues-list-of-incorrectwords.html [16] BBC News UK. Middlesbrough school bans use of local dialect (6 February 2013). See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21361324

272

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

[17] BBC News Tees. Language plea by Sacred Heart School, Middlesbrough (5 February 2013). See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-21340029 [18] Sarler, C. (2013) Hooray for the Head who teaches correct English. Daily Express, 7 February. See http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/376163/ Hooray-for-the-Head-who-teaches-correct-English [19] Richard and Judy (2013) Head teacher spot on for banning pupils from saying slang. Daily Express, 9 February. See http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ richard-and-judy/376603/Headteacher-spot-on-for-banning-pupils-from-saying-slang [20] Upton, C. (2012) The relationship between dialect and identity. BBC Radio 4 Today programme, 31 December. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ newsid_9781000/9781045.stm [21] Snell, J. (2013) Saying no to ‘gizit’ is plain prejudice: A war on dialect will quash curiosity and ideas. Independent, 10 February. See http://www.independent.co.uk/ voices/comment/saying-no-to-gizit-is-plain-prejudice-8488358.html

17 Prescription and Tradition: From the French Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process (1996−2014) Danielle Candel

The Status of French: An Old Tradition that is Still Ongoing? The strong traditional activity regarding language in France is already apparent in the Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts, signed by King François I, in 1539. It is generally admitted that this was when the state first imposed French as the national language. Less than 100 years later, the French Academy, officially established in 1635 by Cardinal Richelieu, the Chief Minister to King Louis XIII, was asked to act as an official authority on the language. The Academy nowadays still has the duty of publishing an official dictionary of French that is supposed to rule the language, but only in an advisory capacity. Its eight first editions were published in 1694, 1718, 1740, 1762, 1798, 1835, 1878 and 1932−1935. The ninth edition was begun in 1986, and its third volume came out in 2011. After the ministerial Committees for Terminology and Neology were created in 1970, the Bas-Lauriol law was passed in 1975, which stated that French was mandatory in various fields, like economy or audiovisual communication. The Toubon law, from 1994, indicated that citizens had the right to be generally informed in French as well as to communicate in that language. In the present chapter, I will consider the situation as it was defined by the Décret Juppé (3 July 1996) which concerns the official enrichment of the French language, and introduces the creation of (1) specialised committees, the Commissions spécialisées de terminologie et de néologie, and

273

274

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

(2) a general Committee for Terminology and Neology, the Commission générale de terminologie et de néologie. One may recall another important step in this recent period of the ongoing tradition: on 25 June 1992 the French Constitution itself was enriched with the following specification: La langue de la république est le français ‘The language of the Republic is French’. This addition underlines the importance assigned to language in the French official tradition.

Two Active Institutional Actors in France in 20141 It is appropriate to identify the two main institutional actors of the French enrichment process. The first of these two is again the Académie française, the French Academy (e.g. Rey, 2011b). The Academy is currently engaged in the writing of the Dictionnaire de l’Académie, a descriptive dictionary of bon usage (e.g. Ayres-Bennett & Seijido, 2013). The second is the Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France (DGLFLF) ‘General delegation for the French language’, instituted by the Ministry of Culture, which manages the terminology committees. Annual grants were given by DGLFLF to the Laboratoire d’Histoire des théories linguistiques, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) to which I belong and which has been providing advice in matters of official terminology and linguistic expertise for the past 15 years. Nevertheless, this chapter does not convey an official view related to my position in this process: instead, it offers a personal account of individual experiences as a member of a few of these committees during a period of 17 years (e.g. Candel, 2010a, 2010b; Pasqualini, 2010). In this light, it is natural to examine the main production of the Academy, which is its dictionary. In what follows, I will discuss the work of the official Committees for Terminology and Neology.

The Academy, its programme, its dictionary The Dictionnaire de l’Académie is a normative dictionary, which can be characterised by some of its traditional aims, i.e. ‘passive prescription’ and ‘implicit purism’ (on purism, see e.g. Walsh, 2013). Its programme may be characterised as follows. It (a) exclusively describes le bon usage ‘the best usage’, which is in effect the Academicians’ own language. Le bon usage is considered to represent the usage of educated people, representing the langue commune, the true ‘common language’; (b) the dictionary exclusively admits and defines ‘stable’ (fixe) language, mostly trying to avoid innovations unless the new word in question is either absolutely ‘necessary’ or extremely ‘common’ (or, in other words, commonly used and understood); (c) it takes a selective approach to usage, according to which clarity of speech is to be favoured, ‘unstable’ words are to be avoided. Neologisms are regarded as instances of linguistic ‘abuse’.

From the Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process

275

The notion of ‘abuse’ is mentioned several times, for instance in the preface to the fourth edition of the dictionary (le néologisme est un abus) and the importance of ‘stability’ was claimed for instance in the preface to the sixth edition (une langue est fixée), the dictionary being a legitimate tool to fix the French language (un outil légitime de fixation de la langue française), as discussed by Collinot and Mazière (1997: 38). Prescriptivism ‘can be broadly defined as an authoritative way of expressing views about the language’ (Fagyal et al., 2006: 4). This is related to the ‘[l]aying down as a guide for others how a language should be spoken and/or written; often opposed to the “descriptivism” advocated by most modern linguistic analyses’ (Fagyal et al., 2006: 306). If the Academy ‘is often cited as an arm of the state in the regulation of the French language’, it ‘has never had that kind of authority’, Fagyal et al. (2006: 177) claim, but one may add that this is the case except within the terminology committee. Indeed, this statement was clarified by the then prime minister, Alain Juppé’s, conclusion, when he presented the new function of the Academy with regard to the official Committees for Terminology and Neology: Je me réjouis […] que l’Académie française participe désormais directement aux travaux d’enrichissement de la langue française et joue un rôle majeur dans l’ensemble de la procedure. (Juppé, 1997: 4)2 Within this programme, the power of the Academy is a real one. What about the official process for the enrichment of French language?

The official Committees for Terminology and Neology and their duties The direct role of the state concerning these official committees is worth mentioning: it is the duty of the state to deal with the status of the language, of its usage and mastery, Alain Juppé (1997: 1) said, adding: Je voudrais insister sur l’enrichissement de la langue française et le rôle que l’État doit jouer dans ce domaine […] il lui revient d’avoir un rôle d’impulsion, et, plus encore de diffusion des travaux d’enrichissement de la langue française et de montrer l’exemple, en faisant obligation à ses propres services d’employer ces vocabulaires. (Juppé, 1997: 4–5)3 At this stage, it is also appropriate to give a brief description of the official programme in terminology and neology by discussing the work of the committees concerned.

276

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

The official committees There are 18 specialised committees, which are active in the following fields: Foreign Affairs; Law; Defense; Culture and Communication; Higher Education; Sports; Equipment, Transportation and Tourism; Economy and Finance; Computer Science and Electronic Communication; Telecommunication and Postal Activities; Health and Medicine; Agriculture; Environment; Chemistry; Automobile; Oil Industry; Nuclear Engineering; Space Sciences and Technology These committees comprise experts from the various fields, but they also include generalists. As for the General Committee for Terminology and Neology, which falls under the prime minister’s responsibility, it includes experts from different fields, some of whom are members of or are related to the Academy of Science or to the French Academy, while others represent higher education, diplomacy, or the Standards office. The groups comprise specialists from a broad variety of disciplines, including literature, journalism, linguistics and law, from different ministries as well as lexicographers, translators and terminologists. Advice provided by Francophone experts is also taken into account. Canadian experts are solicited in selecting new terms and existing databases searched to this end. Altogether, over 600 people take part in the construction of an officially recommended vocabulary. To give a few examples of the items proposed, on 27 June 2014, the database collecting official terms belonging to specific domains, with their definitions and English-American equivalents, consisted of 5918 entries (on 3 March of that year, it comprised 5782 entries – the database is steadily growing, although at a moderate pace). In the database, three major categories of words can be distinguished: there are mostly (1) nouns, followed by (2) noun+adjective combinations, while category (3) comprises phrases consisting of noun+de+noun, as in biothèque (for ‘biological resource centre’, ‘BRC’; Health and Medicine, 2008), couche poreuse (for ‘buffer’, ‘buffer layer’; Nuclear Engineering, 2012), abaissement d’orbite (for ‘orbit lowering’; Space Sciences and Technology, 2001). More than 600 experts from the different fields of expertise are involved in the task assigned to them.

Activities carried out by the Terminology and Neology Committees In order to understand the work of the committees, one should remember that terminology traditionally has a naturally prescriptive orientation. However, the official structure of the committees mainly concerns itself with a kind of ‘general specialised’ vocabulary, which also

From the Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process

277

has to offer definitions in fairly general words. The challenge is to develop a vocabulary that is adequate for its purposes, even when it deals with specialised subjects, which is somewhat contradictory. Since the results of the committees’ recommendations are published by the Ministry in the Journal officiel de la République française ‘Official Journal of the French Republic’, the government is obliged to use the officially published words instead of their foreign equivalents. The official terms are also ‘recommended’ for use by the general public and the media, trade and advertising (de Broglie, 1997), as explained on the website FranceTerme: rendre les nouvelles notions scientifiques et techniques accessibles au plus large public ‘make new scientific and technical knowledge available to the widest audience’. The committees are instructed to avoid using Anglo-American words, as well as to comply with the following rules: (1) a new term must only be introduced if it is really ‘necessary’; (2) a new term must be immediately related to the notion it designates; and (3) a new term must follow the rules of French grammar. The main data to be given for each term are as follows: headword, subject field (domaine), definition, foreign equivalent (équivalent étranger). The subject field of each term is important, since the data have to be ‘situated’ in a specific frame of reference. The definitions have to be put into simple words, so that they are easy to understand. What is important overall is the ‘foreign equivalent’, which is usually an Anglo-American one. Here is an example from a set of recommendations dating from 19 January 2010: orateur principal Domaine: Communication-Relations internationales Définition: Orateur qui, au début d’une conférence, d’un congrès, prononce une communication exposant les enjeux du débat. Équivalent étranger: keynote speaker (en) A number of these newly minted words have gained popular approval such as covoiturage for ‘car pool’, vélo tout terrain for ‘mountain bike’, zone euro for ‘euro zone’ or ‘puce’ for ‘chip’. FranceTerme’s website also notes that the term ‘neology’ is to be understood in the sense defined by the Academy, i.e. referring to new terms as well as, or mostly, to new meanings for old terms, or different meanings from the usual ones: neology remains a ‘dangerous’ matter. It is obvious that both bodies, the Academy and the DGLFLF, are strongly linked in their programmes.

How Did the Academy and the DGLFLF Evolve? In this section, the Academicians’ opinions and attitudes towards neologisms will be examined and a number of innovations in their dictionary will be considered; after that, the official committees and their modes of

278

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

operation will be analysed and finally the results of the joint efforts of these two bodies will be discussed.

The Academicians and the dictionary: A prescriptive turn The opinions of the Academicians and their attitudes towards neologisms As appears from some of their published results, the members of the Academy, who, quite naturally, also take advice from members of the Academy of Science, sometimes show little appreciation for the language of experts. The following examples serve to illustrate this phenomenon. Although the ninth edition of the dictionary was to be more open to new developments in science and technology, the Academy representative who was also its leader, Secrétaire perpétuel Maurice Druon, indicated that he did not want to see dangerosité ‘dangerousness’ included in the dictionary: Inventer dangerosité pour dire: ‘qui a un caractère dangereux’, ou ‘qui présente un danger’ est beaucoup plus grave pour la langue, pour sa pureté, pour son efficacité que les mots corner ou football. (Druon, 1998b: 460)4 However, the word dangerosité was vigorously defended by a member of the Academy of Medicine, who was also a knowledgeable lexicographer, J.C. Sournia, as well as by the German linguist F.J. Hausmann, a specialist of meta-lexicography. Although English influence is accepted in the field of sports, such as golf or tennis, it is rejected elsewhere, and this is sometimes stated in relatively strong words: Notre vocabulaire de la finance, du voyage, de la publicité est déjà encombré de trop d’emprunts détestables pour que, en plus, les modes d’Outre-Atlantique, relayées par les démagogies électoralistes, ne viennent dénaturer nos grammaires. (Druon, 1998a: 8)5 It is interesting to recall that the French word aérospatial ‘aerospace’ was not included as an entry in the ninth edition of the dictionary (although it is mentioned once, s.v. ‘rampe’): it appeared only recently in the addenda, which were available in July 2014 only on the Academy’s website. This word was left out probably because it appeared to be too specialised. In comparison, the word golf occurs 41 times in the first part of the dictionary (from a- to pu-), as consulted on 18 June 2014: 9 times as a label, but also in phrases like champion de golf, championne de golf, joueur de golf, culotte de golf, gants de golf, pantalon de golf, balle de golf, cannes de golf, club de golf; épreuves de golf, jeu de golf, open de golf, parcours de golf, partie de golf, gazons d’un golf, golf miniature, règles du golf, ouvrir and créer un golf, pratiquer le golf,

From the Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process

279

joue au golf, pratique le golf. Some of these are even repeated several times in the dictionary. The word golf is apparently more important to the Academicians than aerospace. The first is a borrowing, but an already old one, and the Academicians claim that playing golf is a common activity among the French population and that golf therefore is a standard word one should not reject. The word aerospace, by contrast, was probably considered unnecessary as it refers to a scientific and technical domain of activities and does not concern everyday life. Of course it is difficult to agree with such a choice.

An innovation within the ninth edition Normative as it is, the Academy’s dictionary has clearly evolved in its ninth edition. A note provides explicit recommendations in various entries, serving to influence the public: remarques normatives, bien visibles, qui proscrivent les expressions, constructions ou utilisations le plus agressivement fautives et dont on peut craindre qu’elles ne s’installent dans le mauvais usage. (Druon, 1992: xvii)6 Comments, highlighted in boldface in the entries (see also Caput, 1986; Rey, 2011a) suggest serious injunctions, as shown by a collection of these comments on the Academy’s website, called Exemples de remarques normatives ‘examples of normative comments’, which in a way resembles advice characteristic of prescriptive usage guides. The dictionary is thus explicitly taking a prescriptive approach. In an effort to ensure language stability, moreover, new words are excluded, which essentially leads to the elimination of scientific and technical terms. This is justified by first noting that not everyone uses them because they only belong to specialist fields, and second by arguing that these words might not remain in use and should therefore not be recommended and should even be forbidden. The Academy categorises its normative comments in the following way: (1) prévenir diverses confusions et impropriétés ‘to prevent confusion and various improprieties’ (2) mettre en garde contre des extensions de sens abusives ‘warn against improper extensions of meaning’ (3) recommander l’emploi d’un mot français à la place d’un mot étranger ‘recommend the use of a French word instead of a foreign one’ (4) guider l’usage quand il hésite entre deux formes ou deux graphies ‘to guide the usage when it hesitates between two forms or two spellings’

280

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

(5) indiquer le bon usage par une recommandation d’emploi qui met en lumière les constructions, les nuances diverses que permet la langue ‘indicate proper usage by a recommendation for use which highlights the constructions and nuances that language allows’ (6) fixer et maintenir le bon usage par le rappel de certaines règles ou tolérances ‘establish and maintain the proper usage by recalling some rules or tolerances’. The third type of normative comment is the most interesting one from the perspective of this chapter because it reveals the most important concern of the official Terminology and Neology Committees: foreign words should be avoided. For all that, each of the five other categories of comments are also part of what guides the official process described. Indeed, the third recommendation could nearly summarise the whole official process of French terminology enrichment. There has thus been a noticeable evolution within the Academy’s dictionary, leading to a mutually growing influence between the Academy and the official committees.

The official Terminology and Neology Committees: A purist turn The actual work of the official committees dates back to the 1970s, which thus constitutes work of what may be called ‘the first generation’. But an important change appeared in 1996, when a pre-eminent role was given to the French Academy which, from that year on, not only took part in all meetings, but had to decide whether a selected word might or might not be transmitted for official publication in the Journal officiel de la République française. This gave the French Academy tremendous influence on the process. As indicated by the then prime minister, the evolution of the French language is guaranteed by the French Academy (‘la qualité et l’évolution de notre langue, dont le garant demeure l’Académie française’; Juppé, 1997: 5), as no word could be published, i.e. be made official, if it had not been previously agreed upon by the Academy. The ministers, moreover, had been given the right for one month to stop a word from being made public, even if this has so far only been done in exceptional circumstances. It is also remarkable that usage of the published terms is mandatory, for state agencies and its public institutions. Officially accepted words are recommended to the general public, and need to be used by the media and in trading or advertising activities, while those not complying with the law will be sued and fined. Feeling free to impose constraints, the state chose to set an example in the use of new official words instead of the corresponding foreign terms. From all this it is clear that prescriptive terminology and what may be called descriptive normative lexicography became intimately linked.

From the Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process

281

Some results: Resemblance or confusion between the Academy and the committees Similarities through a strong prescriptive attitude The Academy and the official committees share relatively similar views. One may wonder whether one tries to imitate the other, or whether the Academy just tries to help the official committees. Here is an example. When the Dictionnaire de l’Académie writes, s.v. ‘nomination’, Aucun verbe français autre que Nommer ne correspondant à Nomination, on s’interdira d’employer l’américanisme Nominer ‘there is no French verb corresponding to Nomination other than Nommer, one should refrain from employing the Americanism Nominer’, the official committee states, s.v. ‘nominé’: sélectionné Le terme ‘nominé’ est à proscrire. Équivalent étranger: nominated (en) (1983, confirmed in 2000) The Academy condemns the American-influenced French verb nominer, while the official committee refuses the American-influenced French noun or adjective nominé. The two bodies thus similarly label the words as Americanisms, proscribing their use in French. There are other similarities between the two institutions. The ‘proscriptions’ of the Academy and the ‘prescriptions’ of the official committee resemble each other. The website FranceTerme proposes a range of clearly prescriptive comments as illustrated by the following prescriptive metalinguistic comments: ne doit pas être confondu avec/employé/utilisé; est déconseillé; est à déconseiller/éviter; n’est pas recommandé; ne pas dire/utiliser; on évitera de, à éviter, and est un anglicisme déconseillé.7 These phrases resemble recent ones from the Academy (the ninth edition of the dictionary): c’est une faute que d’écrire, on ne doit pas dire or ne doit pas être employé ‘it is a mistake to write’, ‘one should not say’ or ‘should not be used’. As a result, there are a few annoying proposals like dialogue en ligne, which unfortunately remains the recommendation since 2006 for ‘chat’; but bloc-notes, bloc for ‘blog’ (2005) was after many efforts replaced in 2014 by blogue. One academician may be quoted as saying that on ne va tout de même pas laisser les industriels gérer notre langue ‘we are not going to let those industrialists tell us how to speak’, while Maurice Druon (1998b: 460) noted that on ne peut pas mettre un gendarme derrière chaque locuteur ‘you can’t put a policeman behind each speaker’. These statements are related to the normative comments listed above, such as the one concerning dangerosité, and belong to what can be called surassertif ‘over-assertive’ (Caron, 2013: 113). It may be noted, however, that Quemada (1997: iv) considers that there is some exaggeration in portraying the Academy as being ‘authoritarian’.

282

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Looking at the DGLFLF website, it is somewhat surprising to see that the results of this process are evidently not intended for specialists: les listes élaborées par le dispositif d’enrichissement de la langue française ne s’adressent pas à des spécialistes. Such a statement sounds exclusive, and it seems inappropriate to oppose specialists talking about their field to less specialised people or non-specialists discussing related subjects, such as journalists or educators. And what about an author looking for a word in French, in order to write a paper for once in French instead of in English, only to discover that the word does not yet exist? Should he or she not be given the opportunity to find the required term in the official recommendations published by the government ( Journal officiel)? It greatly helps to take a look at the website of the Academy and to find that the Academy aims to propose terms in different scientific fields or technical activities in order to expand French terminology. One may ask whether this goal is fulfilled, and remark that the Academy claims that the committees are involved in a process of élaboration des termes. But one may wonder what this means exactly: does it mean that members of the committees always construct or invent new words and expressions? Their work rather involves the elaboration of terminology records, with proposals for newly selected terms. Is it the responsibility of the Academy to construct new terms only from scratch? One important consideration would be to adopt words that experts in specialised domains first submit themselves. There are many instances when such words may be banned, but it is fortunate that proposals made by experts are not always rejected. These observations serve to recall that, in the two programmes discussed in this chapter, one cannot be entirely clear about either the institutions’ announced aims or the expected results: one should just identify trends and the aims to be focused on, but without being too rigorous in the decisions to be taken. Rules should be accepted only within a determined period and a socially homogeneous group, as stated for example by Martin (1972: 63).

The Academy: A nearly conciliatory version of prescription The Academy claims to be quite open to the acceptance of foreign words – and as mentioned above with reference to the field of sports for instance, some such words are indeed appreciated. As a matter of fact, and surprising as it may seem, the Dictionnaire de l’Académie introduces in its ninth edition a whole series of Anglo-American terms. In arguing that one word is recommended instead of another, the Academy incidentally also mentions the ‘bad’ alternatives for foreign words that were rejected by the Academicians. Examples are baladeur for ‘walkman’, éveinage for ‘stripping’, fac-similé for ‘reprint’, financeur for ‘sponsor’, fioul for ‘fuel’, fracassement for ‘crash’ and listage for ‘listing’. But instead of saying that the English versions of the terms are forbidden, as would be expected of the Academy,

From the Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process

283

the words seem to be only ‘less welcome’ than their French versions. One might conclude that the dictionary is becoming permeable to English.

Being more academic than the academicians One may go further in this direction by noting some of the attitudes taken during the official committees’ sessions, and point out the fact that participants sometimes try to anticipate the reactions of the Academy, observing that ‘the Academy surely would disapprove of that’. Experts from different domains are sometimes tempted to become even more academic than the Academy itself. This may illustrated with the case of learner, which is sometimes used in French and could easily be replaced by the French word apprenant. But the word was refused by some members of the official committees who argued that apprenant was not necessary since élève ‘pupil’ already exists in French. Other committee members argued that one does not need the word apprenant because it sounds awful and is unnecessary, and that already existing words like élève and maître ‘teacher’ would be fine – why should we need apprenant and enseignant? In the end, the Academy did accept the word apprenant. Some experts either just overdo it, or are plainly wrong in what they propose, as may be illustrated by the word patch. This word happened to be necessary for a definition, but some committee members recommended that this loanword be rejected because they were convinced that the Academy would never accept it. In fact, patch had already entered the dictionary in 1994, where it was defined as follows: 1. 2.

CHIR. Petit morceau de tissu organique, ou petite pièce de matière synthétique, que l’on utilise dans la chirurgie des organes creux pour réaliser une suture. MÉD. Petite pièce de tissu adhésif imprégnée d’une substance médicamenteuse, que l’on colle sur la peau et qui permet la diffusion du produit dans l’organisme (on dira mieux Timbre) (s.v. ‘patch’)

Note, though, the comment which reads that timbre might be better (‘mieux’) than patch in French. If some members of the committee were convinced that it was impossible to use this ‘foreign word’ patch, they were certainly overreacting. Similar reactions were voiced against a word like week-end, to which fin de semaine was preferred.

A kind of fear and some confusion There may also be some confusion among the committee members: several of them occasionally confuse participants who represent the Academy with those belonging to the managing institution Délégation générale à la langue française, as both groups might help in taking the official decisions of accepting a word and its definition or rejecting it.

284

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Developing websites: Description or prescription? Another sign of mutual influence is the way both websites, of the coordinating DGLFLF and of the Academy, present themselves. They grow increasingly similar in the type of information they convey. For instance, the DGLFLF website has claimed since 2007 Vous dites déjà, vous pouvez dire aussi ‘you already say, you may also say’, while the Academy website has stated, since 2011, Dire, ne pas dire ‘say, don’t say’. Where terminology is turning just purist and more permeable, lexicography is turning more prescriptive.

Concluding Remarks This chapter aimed to demonstrate that France is conscious of the problems involved in finding words for new concepts and specifically those needed in specialised fields, the general goal being to allow communication in French among non-specialists – although consideration is given to all fields and specialties. France’s traditional rules are still effective: looking for ‘pure’ and ‘clear’ language, defining with ‘simple’ words, innovating only if ‘necessary’. The old French Academy and the young enrichment process for the French language work together in order to preserve French terminology. In 2014, with its dictionary and its numerous terminology committees, France seems to be quite unique in its search for language quality. The dictionary of the Academy is well known for its traditions originating in the 17th century, while the Terminology and Neology Committees emerged three centuries later. Descriptive normative lexicography from the Academy and prescriptive terminology proposed by official committees are nowadays joining forces to make French develop in both normative and prescriptive directions. Obviously, both programmes and the two institutions are merging today. We may therefore observe that actors in the terminology committees might be led to anticipate the reactions of the Academy, but at times they happen to turn even more academic than the Academy, indicating that there is a real mutual influence between both institutions. On this basis, one may imagine two possible scenarios as far as the use of English is concerned in official French terminology. One direction could be to reinforce the rules in order to try to define the norm in a better way and to make French more resistant to English. This would be a sort of ‘defence’ of French. Such a movement should be officially led by the government, through new rules and laws – but the question remains of how, for instance, the official school system would be made to adopt some compulsory words but exclude others, or indeed scientific writers producing publications in French. How, in such a scenario, could students be penalised and authors remain unpublished for terminological reasons? All this presents an ideological risk. Furthermore, this would lead to an

From the Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process

285

impoverishment of the language, which would oppose the attempted ‘enrichment’ process. Indeed, language is made of borrowings, intra or interlinguistic ones. Another direction to be taken could be to weaken the rules, open the official lists of terms and innovate by accepting more official terminological neologisms, at the risk of introducing more Anglicisms (didn’t English accept lots of Gallicisms in the past?). The current trend is somewhere in between these two extremes. Improvements occurred in the French official enrichment process over the past 10 years: the process has gathered a wider range of actors and has given greater independence to each of the representative categories. Everyone, for instance, is invited to propose words for the purpose of potential inclusion into the lexicon. The whole process seems to get more productive, more up-to-date with the general evolution of terminology, while conceding a constant interest in English, sometimes even a kind of fascination combined with a love–hate relationship. There is, however, a kind of distrust, or disapproval of whatever is innovative compared to the personal experience and knowledge of those who are taking part in the enrichment process of the French language. Also, a suspicious attitude is commonly observed with respect to specialised words as soon as they belong to a different field of expertise than one’s own. This is often why foreign words are rejected, particularly those of Anglo-American origin. The consequence is a risk of discrimination through language policy, of which one must be aware. Language should definitely be enriched – and sometimes naturally so. One conclusion of the growing collaboration described in this chapter is the remarkable and excellent lexicographical style adopted in published articles. France has many experts, scientists and technicians who are either learning themselves, or recommending to others, prescriptive ways of (re)naming and defining important concepts. These innovations ought to be analysed in further investigations based on studies of the implementation of new words, a topic which is being addressed by Candel and Cabré (in press).

Notes (1) (2) (3)

(4)

In 2015, the Commissions spécialisées de terminologie et de néologie changed their names into Collèges d’experts and the Commission générale de terminologie et de néologie became Commission d’enrichissement de la langue française. ‘It is […] a pleasure to note that the French Academy now directly participates in the process of enrichment of French language and plays a major role in this procedure’ (my translation, here and throughout this chapter). ‘I would like to insist on the need for enrichment of the French language and on the role the State must play in this field […] it is its duty to drive the process and propagate results of the language enrichment process and be an example by making it an obligation to its own departments to employ these vocabularies’. ‘Inventing dangerousness to say “something which presents a dangerous feature” is much more dangerous for language, for its purity and efficiency, than the words corner or football’.

286

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

(5) ‘Our vocabulary for Finance, Travel, Advertising is already crowded with too many distasteful borrowed terms to allow fashions from the other side of the Atlantic to further distort our grammars under the pressure of electoral demagogy’. (6) ‘Normative comments, clearly visible, proscribing expressions, structures or most aggressively faulty usage and which, one may fear, could move into bad usage’. (7) ‘Must not be confused with/employed/used’; ‘is not advised’; ‘is not advisable/ to avoid’; ‘is not recommended’; ‘don’t say/use’; ‘one must not’ and ‘to be avoided’.

References Ayres-Bennett, W. and Seijido, M. (eds) (2013) Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique. Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales. Lyon: ENS Éditions. Broglie, de G. (1997) Réponse au Discours d’Installation de la commission générale de terminologie et de néologie par P. Juppé. 11 février 1997, Paris, Hôtel Matignon. Candel, D. (2010a) Pour une évaluation de la pratique néologique dans les commissions de terminologie et néologie en France. In M.T. Cabré, O. Domènech, R. Estopà, J. Freixa and M. Lorente (eds) Actes del I Congrès International de Neologia de les Llengües Romàniques CINEO 2008 (pp. 431–444). Barcelona: IULA. Candel, D. (2010b) Dénommer et définir en lexicographie et en terminologie. L’Archicube 9, 114−121. Candel, D. and Cabré, T. (in press) L’enrichissement de la langue et le rôle de l’Etat, vus à travers le regard croisé de la lexicographie et de la terminologie institutionnelles (en France 1970−2012). In É. Buchi, J.P. Chauveau and J.M. Pierrel (eds) Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (pp. 101–111), 2013. Strasbourg: Société de linguistique romane/ÉLiPhi. Caput, J.P. (1986) L’Académie française. Coll. “Que sais-je ?”. Paris: PUF. Caron, P. (2013) L’autorité académique en gestation. In W. Ayres-Bennett and M. Seijido (eds) Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique, Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales (pp. 109−118). Lyon: ENS Éditions. Collinot, A. and Mazière, F. (1997) Un prêt à parler. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Dictionnaire de l’Académie (1992–) 3 Vol. (A – Quo, 1992–2011) (9th edn). Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Online version (A – réglage). See http://atilf.atilf.fr/academie9.htm (accessed 25 June 2014). Druon, M. (1992) Avertissement. Dictionnaire de l’Académie française 1 (1994), A-Enz, Paris 1994 Imprimerie nationale/Juillard, XV−XVIII. Druon, M. (1998a) Discours sur l’état de la langue. Séance publique annuelle. 3 décembre 1998. Druon, M. (1998b) La neuvième édition du Dictionnaire de l’Académie française. In B. Quemada and J. Pruvost (eds) Le Dictionnaire de l’Académie française et la lexicographie institutionnelle européenne. Actes du Colloque International. Institut de France. Novembre 1994 (pp. 455–461). Paris: Champion. Fagyal, Z., Kibbee, D. and Jenkins, F. (2006) French, A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. FranceTerme, Tous les termes publiés au Journal officiel par la Commission générale de terminologie. See http://franceterme.culture.fr/FranceTerme/ (accessed 18 April 2014). Juppé, A. (1997) Discours d’Installation de la commission générale de terminologie et de néologie. Paris, Hôtel Matignon, 11 février 1997. Martin, R. (1972) Normes, jugements normatifs et tests d’usage, Études de linguistique appliquée, nouvelle série, 6, 59–74.

From the Dictionnaire de l’Académie to the Official French Language Enrichment Process

287

Pasqualini, J.M. (2010) Entre lexicographie et terminologie: Le rôle de l’Académie française, L’Archicube 9, 103−114. Quemada, B. (1997) Présentation. In B. Quemada and J. Pruvost (eds) Les Préfaces du Dictionnaire de l’Académie française 1694−1992 (pp. I–XI). Paris: Champion. Rey, C. (2011a) Les ‘Recommandations normatives’ de la neuvième édition du Dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Carnets d’Atelier de Sociolinguistique 5, 59–82. Rey, C. (ed.) (2011b) Le Dictionnaire de l’Académie française: Un modèle qui traverse les siècles. Études de linguistique appliquée 163. Walsh, O. (2013) Linguistic purism in France and Quebec. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.

18 Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian Arto Mustajoki

Introduction The Russian language faced two radical changes during the last 20 years. One of these is the same as that found in many other marketbased societies: colloquial speech and features of entertainment have penetrated public language use. This is especially true of media texts, both oral (TV, radio) and written (newspapers and journals). One of the actions aimed at ‘saving’ the language was the adoption of a new Language Act in 2003, which followed the French tradition of purism and granted the authorities the right to confirm the linguistic norm. It was surprising that the first regulatory action on 1 September 2009 was to accept some variants of spelling and pronunciation which had previously been in popular use, but that were non-standard according to authoritative dictionaries. Another substantial change directly caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was the decline of the status of Russian in the former Soviet republics. At the same time, large numbers of Russians emigrated to Western countries. The new situation raised the question of the existence of varieties of Russian. According to the traditional view, there is only one standard variety of the language. However, it is obvious that the Russian used in official documents in, say, Kazakhstan, or as a lingua franca in Dagestan, has gradually diverged from what is known as ‘Moscow Russian’. Researchers argue over the status of these differences: are they merely local colourings of the standard language, or are there grounds for speaking of different varieties of Russian? Before going into these issues in detail, I will take a brief look at general questions of standardisation that have affected Russian in the course of its history. To provide some further background, a brief overview of the history of the language will be provided.

288

Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian

289

‘Official Norm’ – Theoretical Considerations The ‘system – norm – usage (usus)’ trichotomy gives an appropriate tool for considering the different approaches to the questions ‘what is a language’ and ‘what are the limits of acceptable language use’ (cf. Coseriu, 1962; Mustajoki, 1988). The ‘system’ covers the potential of the language. Thus, the verb form goed (instead of went) is well formed according to the system of the English language. The concept of ‘norm’ is based on people’s opinions about correctness in language. Usage is a generalisation of people’s linguistic production. Every community of language users also has its inherent ‘collective norm’, which is created by unconscious agreement among these people. This norm may differ from the way they actually speak. Thus, the term ‘collective norm’ refers to the notions that people have about the correctness and acceptability of linguistic units, while usage reflects their real speech (cf. Mustajoki, 1988, 2013). Given that standardisation denotes intentional intervention in language matters, it concerns only the official norm. However, when speaking of the norms of various languages, what we usually mean is the ‘official’ norm. This norm is presented to native speakers on a ‘top-down’ basis by linguistic and/or political authorities and concerns mainly the written language. It is connected to the notions of ‘standard language’, ‘literary language’ and ‘codification of a language’, which are often discussed in the context of ‘language ideology’ (see e.g. Haugen, 1964; Milroy, 2001; Seargeant, 2009). The need for linguistic normalisation is closely linked to the idea of a nation state, the establishment of which meant the need to rule and educate citizens by distributing information to them (Gal & Irvine, 1995; Taylor, 1990). The creation and existence of an official norm is an interesting question from the point of view of democracy. As discussed in Coupland and Kristiansen (2011), two opposite interpretations are possible here. From one point of view, an official norm imposed from above can be seen as a manifestation of the anti-democratic nature of society: it means that a small number of people, the authorities and/or the ‘elite’ of the country, determine how the vast majority should use their mother tongue, at least in a written context. According to the opposite view, the existence of a standardised language with explicit normative rules makes it possible for all people to speak in a correct way. Learning a standard language is not an easy task, as is clear from the large number of hours and years devoted to it. In most cases, the official norm of the mother tongue differs substantially from the language a child heard and learnt before going to school. This has even led researchers to see the codified version of the mother tongue as a foreign language (Milroy, 2001: 537; Shcherba, 1974: 315; Zemskaia, 1987: 4), particularly

290

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

in countries like China, where the codified language strongly differs from the spoken varieties of that language. Likewise in the Arab world, various dialects are spoken in different countries while codified Arabic is used as a common literary language. Prescriptive grammars and dictionaries are important tools in establishing and preserving an official norm. They are published by authorities, institutions or publishers which have been granted, or have appropriated, the right to distribute this kind of linguistic information. Concrete mechanisms of codifying a language vary. The task may be officially entrusted to a particular administrative body or institution, such as an academy, or a decisive but unofficial role is played by the higher social classes.

The Russian Language before 1990 Historical background According to the common scholarly view, East Slavonic began to separate from other Slavonic languages around AD 500. It is more difficult to date the differentiations between the three East Slavonic languages – Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian – because their acknowledgement as separate languages has been (as is often the case) a political question rather than a linguistic one. Further development took place in two directions. The oral vernacular language started to acquire dialectal features, while written documents, mostly sacral or epic, for several centuries showed a substantial Church Slavonic influence. Excavations of birchbark manuscripts during the last few decades, especially in the Novgorod area, show that at least from the 11th century onwards short texts were written in the vernacular language (see the work by Schaeken and others on this topic; e.g. Schaeken, 2012). The canonical Russian view relates the establishment of the norm of literary (standard) Russian to two important persons. First, in the mid18th century, the famous linguist and polymath Mikhail Lomonosov (1711−1765) adopted from other languages the concept of the three styles of rhetoric and literature, and applied it to Russian. The high style was for stately texts such as odes and tragedies, the middle style for dramas, elegies and satires and the low style for comedies, songs and fables. The theory of the three styles was a prelude to the construction of a unified literary norm for the Russian language, the credit for which is given to Russia’s most cherished poet, Alexander Pushkin (1799−1837). Pushkin gave the language the main features of its contemporary form, merging various elements of the language into a coherent whole based on his linguistic intuition. Thus, since the early 19th century, one can see three constituents of Russian: a wide vernacular Russian basis is enriched by a

Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian

291

large number of loanwords mostly from other Indo-European languages, and by embedded Church Slavonic elements. This latter pillar of Russian manifests itself in doublets reflecting the historical phonetic processes of South and East Slavonic languages, such as (Volgo)grad ~ gorod ‘town’, strana ‘country’ ~ storona ‘side’, or in differences in word roots, such as istina ~ pravda ‘truth’.

Grammars and dictionaries Grammatiki slavenskia pravilnoe sintagma ‘Slavonic grammar with correct syntax’, written in 1619 by archbishop Meletius Smotritsky (1577−1633), is sometimes regarded as the first grammar of Russian. It had a huge influence on all East Slavonic languages until the end of the 18th century, although it mainly reflected literary Church Slavonic. The first grammar of genuine Russian was Heinrich Ludolf’s Grammatica Russica (Oxford, 1696), a short handbook for foreigners with examples translated into Latin and German. In 1755, Mikhail Lomonosov’s Rossiiskaia grammatika ‘Russian grammar’ began a new era in Russian grammatography. The book’s overall structure and its set of grammatical categories largely resemble those found in today’s grammars. Lomonosov distinguished three Russian dialect areas, comprising Northern, Ukrainian and Moscow dialects, but he took the rules of pronunciation from the Moscow dialect, referring not only to its status as the speech of the capital, but also to its ‘unparallelled beauty’. Since the early 19th century, Russian grammatography and linguistic description in general developed very rapidly, with competing Russian grammars appearing concurrently. As pointed out in Iartseva and Arutiunova (1972), the tradition of Russian ‘academic grammars’ began in 1802. These grammars bear this epithet for two reasons: they were compiled by linguists working in the Academy of Sciences and reflect scholarly research in presenting grammatical categories and using grammatical terms. Thus, the appearance of an academic grammar is always an important milestone in the history of Russian linguistics. The chief editor of the 1952–1954 grammar was the most prominent Russian linguist of those days, Viktor Vinogradov (1895−1969), and the next influential figure was Natalia Shvedova (1916−2009). The 1970 grammar, compiled under her supervision, was an experimental one in which a large variety of fresh linguistic theories and approaches were applied (Iartseva & Arutiunova, 1972). The grammar was not received well and never gained widespread currency. Shvedova was again the chief editor of the next academic grammar. Theoretically, the 1980 grammar is a compromise between traditional views and modern linguistic thinking, and this time it was awarded the State Prize. The academic grammars demonstrate the tradition of presenting language

292

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

structures and forms in a rather normative mode. Thus, they can be classified as prescriptive rather than descriptive. As for monolingual Russian dictionaries taking a descriptive approach, the absolute peak was reached with Vladimir Dahl’s Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka ‘Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language’, which was published in 1863–1866. The dictionary comprises approximately 200,000 lexical units, reflecting both the literary language and different forms of speech (dialects and urban vernaculars). Since then, all major dictionaries, large and small, have had an exclusively normative orientation. In the lexicographical tradition, the bulk of illustrative examples are taken from famous writers. Because the notion of the ‘contemporary Russian language’ was taken to extend from recent usage to Pushkin’s time, 19th-century writers were still well represented in dictionaries published in the 1980s. Words outside the written norm were frequently given the label razg ‘colloquial’, but they typically belonged to the register characteristic of the relaxed speech of the intelligentsia. The special role of the intelligentsia is manifested in the use of the term nositel’ literaturnogo iazyka ‘native speaker of the literary language’, which refers to the class of people who are aware of the linguistic norm. Such people may make mistakes in speech, but they are able to speak correctly if required. In some connections, this category of people has been defined as living in cities and having a university education. They are granted a special role in sociolinguistic surveys of native speakers’ opinions about the correctness of controversial linguistic forms. During the Soviet era (1922−1991), apart from grammars and general dictionaries, dozens of other normative books were published, such as dictionaries of spelling, accentuation and pronunciation (orthoepy) and usage guides. These, however, were not compiled or published by a single person or institution, and a certain degree of polyphony did exist in defining the linguistic norm during the Soviet times.

The history of the Cyrillic alphabet The spelling of words and the entire alphabetic system is an important part of the normalisation of any language, so a few words must be devoted to the history of the Cyrillic (and Russian) alphabet. Apparently, the Eastern Slavs did not have a writing system before 850. Then two brothers, Cyril (826/7–869) and Methodius (815–885), known as apostles to the Slavs and canonised as saints, created the first Slavonic alphabet in order to translate holy texts into the Slavonic language. Despite the persistent opinion of some researchers and most speakers of the contemporary languages, what they created was not the Cyrillic but the Glagolitic alphabet, which for centuries remained a parallel way of writing mostly sacred texts in Slavonic (Tschernochvostoff, 1947; Kiparsky, 1964). The Cyrillic alphabet

Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian

293

was developed by the disciples of Cyril and Methodius at the end of the 9th century.1 During its history, the Cyrillic alphabet went through several reforms. Two of these are worth mentioning here. One major reform was put into effect by Peter the Great at the beginning of the 18th century. The Tsar’s general idea was to make the alphabet easier to learn so that more people could acquire reading and writing skills. Some unnecessary letters were dropped and the spelling as a whole was simplified. The new version of the alphabet was called grazhdanskii shrift ‘civil’ or ‘secular script’. From this point onwards it is also possible to speak of the Russian alphabet. The second major modernisation and simplification was carried out by the communist government in 1917, though the reform had been planned much earlier. Its main architect was Jakov Grot (1812−1893), who had published his theoretical reflections on Russian orthography 45 years previously. Although the reform, which again abolished some letters that no longer had real phonemic value, was originally not connected to the new communist regime, the ‘new writing’ became an important symbol of the political upheaval that took place in Russia. For decades, émigrés in the West continued to use the ‘old writing’ in their publications, and in the 1990s, for nostalgic reasons, some elements of the old spelling, especially the so-called tviordyi znak or ‘hard sign’ at the end of words, reappeared in some names and titles.

The Russian Language since 1990: What Makes the Situation in Russia Special? In this section, the recent development of the Russian language is considered. As mentioned at the beginning, it generally resembles similar processes in Western countries, but there are also some specific Russian features. The common processes of change in language use can be characterised as vernacularisation and colloquialisation: the language used in the public sphere is becoming less official and closer to the language that most people use themselves. My aim here is answer two questions: what and why?

Revolution in society (and revolution of the mind?) Although the collapse of the Soviet Union is not called a revolution, it brought about a total change in the lives of Russians. The former union of 15 republics came to an end and the economic system started to transfer from a socialist ideology towards a market-based one. As for the language, the most visible change occurred in the mass media. Social media everywhere have their own internal collective norms which differ

294

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

radically from those of written texts. A similar development affected Russian. However, in terms of debates about ‘incorrect’ usage this is not a major issue, because the people who are worried about linguistic norms remain oblivious to these developments. The situation used to be similar for slang, which, as far as Russian is concerned, was believed not to belong to the language itself but to a territory outside it. It was felt to represent, so to say, anti-language or non-language. Changes in the language of the mass media, both in the print media and radio and television, are of a different order because they are visible to everyone. In Russia, this process was much faster than in other countries as there was an immediate change from a strongly regulated public language use to a rather chaotic media landscape. This led to a democratisation of public language practices, which had previously been in the hands of a small number of speakers of literary Russian. Suddenly, almost all speakers could have their voices heard in public arenas. Having the freedom to speak the way they wanted to, people actively introduced colloquial expressions and English loanwords into official speech, so that personal and public communication became affected by spontaneous language use (Zemskaia, 1996). This unusual situation can be explained by general changes in society, such as the de-ideologisation of various spheres of human activity, antitotalitarian tendencies, the deletion of prohibitions and restrictions in political and social life, a diminution of censorship and self-censorship and openness to new currents from the West in economics, politics and culture (Krysin, 2000, cf. Zemskaia, 1996; Kon’kov et al., 2004).

Influx of loanwords Russian has always been rather open to foreign influences. From his journeys to Europe, Peter the Great brought not only Western ideas and shipbuilding skills, but also dozens of new words, mainly of Dutch origin. Alexander Pushkin liked to use French words and expressions, as was typical among the nobility of those days. New words were also introduced into Russian by the Soviet regime, especially during its first decade.2 Apart from words common to many languages, such as universitet, student, ministr, telefon, strategiia, matematika and biologiia, some fields of human activity are almost totally covered in Russian by words of foreign origin. One such field is sport (stadion, biatlon, bobslei, start, finish, chempionat); another is the world of computers (komp’iuter, domen, printer). Nevertheless, researchers (e.g. Kostomarov, 1999, 2015; Ryazanova-Clarke & Wade, 1999) are right in arguing that the post-Soviet period has been especially auspicious for foreign, mainly English influence. The list of new words transferred to Russian during the last two decades is almost endless (khaitek ‘high tech’, monitoring, promoushn, praivesi, kreativ, klip, ivent, ekstrim,

Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian

295

autsorsing, klaster, treningi, brend). Words of English origin are so common that one may wonder why some words, such as challenging and evaluation, are still missing in Russian. In some cases, new words were adopted in order to obliterate Soviet connotations. So, to make staying in a hotel more comfortable, the old word gostinitsa was replaced by the modern otel’, although the environment has in many cases stayed the same. Instead of Soviet-style sandwiches, called buterbrody, Russians started to sell sendvichi. In the 1990s, conference chairs began to announce that it was time for a kofe-breik instead of the traditional Russian (Soviet-style) pereryv na kofe. Some people did not like the English expression, creating a third variant with old words in a new combination: pauza na kofe. English influence has concerned not only the influx of individual words, but also the expansion of a certain derivation type. Thus, compound words with an indeclinable first part, usually of English origin, are widely used: these include veb-dizain, seks-shop, internet-kafe, art-proiekt, biznes-shkola and gala-kontsert (cf. Valgina, 2001: 139−140). Some initial components have become very popular, including eks- ‘ex-, former’ (eks-zhena ‘-wife’, eks-muzh ‘-husband’, eks-glava ‘-director’ and even eks-privychka ‘former habit’) and psevdo- (psedvogosudarstvo ‘-state’, psevdolekarstvo ‘-medicine’, psevdonauchnyi ‘-scientific’, psevdoiskusstvo ‘-art’) (Ratsiburskaia, 2008).

‘Linguistic consciousness’ There is some evidence for arguing that Russians have a strong ‘linguistic consciousness’, by which I mean awareness about the state of the language. Here again the phenomenon itself is more or less universal in Western countries, but it is seen especially clearly in Russia. To discuss this, I will start by looking at the debate concerning linguistic norms. It is based on a general understanding of the ideal of an error-free use of language (cf. Preston, 2002). People both hate and love the norm they learnt at school and demand its proper observance from others. What they do not realise is that this official norm is an artificial creation of the authorities (cf. Cameron, 1995). Another thing that they do not see are mistakes in their own speech production. Similar opinions and discussions may be encountered in other countries as well, but the debate on the ‘spoiling’ of the national language is much more emotional in Russia than elsewhere (Vanhala-Aniszewski, 2010; Wingender et al., 2010). TV programmes in which the Russian language is discussed are more emotional than those on political issues. There are two specific causes in contemporary Russian for people’s worry and anger: the widespread use of foreign loanwords and brutal language. In discussing these phenomena, people often use strong expressions like ‘linguistic nihilism’ and ‘linguistic utilitarianism’, which lead

296

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

to ‘semantic primitivism’, or simply ‘crisis’ (Iudina, 2010: 9–16). However, there are also linguists who regard the changes in language use as a sign of democratisation. Nina Mechkovskaia (2006) even argues that the previous situation reflected some sort of ‘linguistic apartheid’, which lasted for centuries. One of the most critical comments has been made by Nikolai Golev (2009), who claims that a poor linguistic intuition among Russians is the result of a one-sided school curriculum, in which all attention is focused on gramotnost’, correct spelling and punctuation, without any concern for real communication (cf. Mustajoki, 2013). Linguistic consciousness and a dualist attitude towards new loanwords is also reflected in the way in which Russians use such words. It is quite typical to accompany the use of a loanword by commenting on it in some way or other. People may say that they do not like a word they are using, or they may just refer to its novelty or originality, which shows that they find it necessary to explain the use of the word or even to apologise for it (Mustajoki & Vepreva, 2006).

Language laws The debate during the 1990s about the degeneration of Russian led to concrete action in order to establish a law which would help to cleanse the language from undesirable elements. The process in the Duma was long and colourful. Finally, in 2003, the Duma passed a law on the Russian language, directed at loanwords and ‘bad language’. Thus, the law states that ‘it is not allowed to use substandard [prostorechnykh], contemptuous [prenebrezhitel’nykh] or abusive [brannykh] words and expressions, or foreign words for which there exists a commonly used analogue [analog] in the Russian language’ (translation and emphasis mine). This point provoked a good deal of cynical commentary because in the text the loanword analog could have been replaced by a Russian equivalent. Another interesting change in the Russian tradition of norm-building was a paragraph which gave the Ministry of Education the right to determine the linguistic norm (see e.g. Krongauz, 2007: 195−202). This was the first time in history that this role was given to a body representing state structures. This law was then rejected by the Federation Council (see in more detail: RyazanovaClarke, 2006b; Pyykkö, 2010). In 2005, another law determining the linguistic environment in Russia, the Law on Russian as the State Language, was adopted. It grants several other languages a local status, but at state level Russian, the mother tongue of 91% of the population, is the only official language. In 2009, the Ministry of Education for the first time exercised its right to determine the official norm of the Russian language by nominating four dictionaries as authoritative reference works. The most notable implications of this decision were: (1) some relaxations of linguistic norms (most of them connected with word

Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian

297

stress: iógurt and iogúrt, dogovór and dógovor ‘agreement’); and (2) acceptance of the use of the word kofe ‘coffee’ as a neuter besides the traditional masculine interpretation (the earlier spelling expressed masculine gender: kofei). These changes are interesting from the perspective of the distance between norm and usage/usus. The official decision seems to have resulted in a more liberal position than the previous procedure by which representatives of the intelligentsia held the norm in their own hands. The concrete date of the new version of the official norm allows us to study the influence of this action by the authorities. Table 18.1 shows the share of the masculine form in the contexts chornyi/chornoe kofe ‘black coffee’ and goriachii/goriachee kofe ‘hot coffee’ in Russian newspapers before and after the new gender assignment of the word kofe (Integrum database; see Mustajoki, 2006). Table 18.1 Grammatical gender of the word kofe in Russian media texts 2000−2008 chornyi kofe (m) chornoe kofe (n) goriachii kofe (m) goriachee kofe (n)

3496 57 2289 36

2010−2013 1649 67 1163 30

Increase of the neuter form 1.6%→3.9% 1.5%→2.5%

As we can see, the proportion of the neuter form is very low even in colloquial collocations. The slight increase in the use of the neuter form is caused by metatexts in which people comment on the new normative rules. The interesting point here is that in everyday conversation almost all native speakers, even those belonging to the category of native speakers of literary Russian, would prefer the neuter form. The normative tone and the desire to teach people to speak correctly is manifested in various radio and TV programmes, such as Govorim po-russki ‘Let’s speak Russian’, Kak pravil’no? ‘Which is correct?’, Likbez ‘Overcoming illiteracy’, Na kakom iazyke my govorim ‘The language that we speak’ (Ryazanova-Clarke, 2006a: 47). In addition, a large foundation, Russkii Mir ‘Russian world’ was established in 2007 to support the teaching and studying of Russian, while an extensive street advertisement campaign for speaking correctly was launched in St Petersburg in 2014. The new language law, together with the criminalisation of defamation and the widespread prosecution of verbal abuse, has created a new market for linguists, who are used as experts in court cases in which someone is accused of verbally insulting another person. The task of the expert is to determine whether a word or expression is beyond the level of normal conversation so that the victim is entitled to compensation. There is a good deal of literature on the topic with even a new scientific journal

298

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

being devoted to it. This new branch of linguistics is called lingvisticheskaia ekspertiza or iuridicheskaia lingvistika ‘forensic or legal linguistics’.

Russian outside Russia The geographical spread of Russian speakers and the status of the language have undergone dramatic changes during the last two decades. Russian used to serve as a lingua franca in the Soviet Union and many native Russian speakers lived in the former Soviet republics. Most speakers of other languages were also fluent in Russian. In the 1990s, many Russians moved from the newly independent countries to Russia, while hundreds of thousands of Russians emigrated to the US, Germany, France, Brazil and other countries. Their numbers vary according to the method of calculation adopted (Mustajoki, 2010; Ryazanova-Clarke, 2014). So though statistics as such are not always reliable, even more depends on the category of ‘Russianness’ that we are interested in. This can be demonstrated by the figures for Ukraine: 17% of the population are (ethnic) Russians, but 29% have Russian as their mother tongue, while 20% regard themselves as bilingual. A total of 76% of Ukrainians are fluent in Russian. Concerning the extent to which Moscow determines the linguistic norms, we have to identify three major categories of native Russian speakers outside Russia (Vakhtin et al., 2010): (1) people living in the so-called ‘near abroad’ and having close cultural contacts with Russia (TV, print media); (2) emigrants living in the ‘far abroad’; and (3) ‘Old Believers’ (starovery) and other special groups with an archaic tradition (e.g. Alaska Russians) (cf. for English, Kachru, 1985). The third group of people is, by definition, totally independent of any external norm. They want to preserve their own very archaic variety of Russian, which they regard as the only right one. Russian spoken in the ‘far abroad’ has to face the pressure of the surrounding languages as a force influencing not only vocabulary but gradually also grammatical structure. Because Russian has no official status in these countries, the norm is determined spontaneously by the speakers themselves (see Mustajoki et al., 2010). The question about possible varieties therefore has to be considered within the scope of the ‘near abroad’ countries where Russian used to have an official status, and in some cases still does (see e.g. Pavlenko, 2008a, 2008b). The contemporary status of Russian in these countries varies a great deal. Its position is strongest in Belarus, where Russian is an official state language along with Belarusian. In Kazakhstan, the situation is practically the same. In Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and many other former Soviet republics, Russian has no special status and is similar in this respect to any foreign language. The need to standardise Russian at a local level is greatest in those countries where official documents are written in that language. In

Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian

299

practice, such official documents also serve as an example to other language users, and this kind of norm-building is therefore an organic process which can afterwards be stabilised by normative dictionaries and usage guides. The use of Russian in official contexts outside Russia inevitably produces deviations from the Russian used in Moscow. This concerns even Belarus (Woolhiser, 2014), which has close contacts with Russia. It is a semantic question when it is reasonable to speak of a new variety of Russian. In countries where Russian is used less systematically, the language develops in the spirit of a collective norm, even in written texts. An interesting example of using Russian as an oral lingua franca comes from Dagestan, an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation, where it is acquiring features similar to those of English as a lingua franca (see e.g. Hülmbauer, 2009). The practical communicative function outweighs any normative restrictions.

Conclusion During the last 20 years, the Russian language has faced major changes in many respects. A ‘new’ language, with numerous colloquial features, is widely used in the social media, mass media texts and TV programmes. The discussion concerning the low level of linguistic culture led to a puristic language law forbidding the use of abusive expressions and unnecessary loanwords. The Ministry of Education used its new role in determining details of the official norm, which used to be the privilege of the intelligentsia. This authoritative body turned out to be more democratic than the previous tradition. Thus, some variants in pronunciation and grammar which were in frequent use were accepted as standard Russian. At the same time, the status and spread of Russian have changed dramatically. In the Soviet Union, formerly a large superpower, the language had a prominent position. Today, Russians are living abroad and Russian is widely spoken in several independent countries, each of which has its own language policy, also with regard to Russian. In any case, the situation is auspicious for a gradual appearance of national varieties. Russian is an important lingua franca, both in regular communication settings in regions where it is the only possible language for everyday interaction and in occasional encounters between any two persons who are able to speak Russian. Even so, it is still far removed from the situation in which English is today as a global language.

Notes (1) (2)

For further reading on this topic, see for instance Iliev (2013). See further Matthews (1960) and Istrin (1988).

300

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

References Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge. Coseriu, E. (1962) Sistema, norma y habla. In Teoría del Lenguaje y Lingüística Genera (pp. 11–115). Madrid: Gredos. Coupland, N. and Kristiansen, T. (2011) SLICE: Critical perspectives on language (de) standardisation. In T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds) Standard Languages and Language Standards in Changing Europe (pp. 11−35). Oslo: Novus. Gal, S. and Irvine, J.T. (1995) The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research 62 (4), 967−1001. Golev, N.V. (2009) Sovremennoe rossiiskoe obydennoe metaiazykovoe soznanie mezhdu naukoi i shkol’nym kursom russkogo iazyka (‘pravil’nost’ kak bazovyi postulat naivnoi lingvistiki). In Obydennoe metaiazykovoe soznanie: Ontologicheskie i gnoseologicheskie aspekty, chast’ 2 (pp. 387–389). Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo gos. ped. un-ta. Haugen, E. (1964) Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropology 68, 922–935. Hülmbauer, C. (2009) ‘We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand’ – The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in ESL. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds) English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings (pp. 323–348). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Iartseva, V.N. and Arutiunova, N.D. (1972) Retsenziia na: Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo iazyka (1970). Zhurnal Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 4, 144−147. Iliev, I.G. (2013) Short history of the Cyrillic alphabet. International Journal of Russian Studies 2 (4), 221−285. Integrum database. See http://www.integrum.ru/. Istrin, V.A. (1988) 1100 Let slavianskoi azbuki. Moscow: Nauka. Iudina, N.V. (2010) Russkii iazyk v XXI veke: Krizis? evoliutsiia? progress? Moscow: Gnozis. Kachru, B.B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiparsky, V. (1964) Tschernohvostoffs Theorie über den Ursprung des glagolitischen Alphabets. Slavistische Forschungen 6, 393–400. Kon’kov, V.I., Potsar, A.M. and Smetanina, S.I. (2004) Iazyk SMI: sovremennoe sostoianie i tendentsii razvitiia. In Sovremennia rech’: Sostoianie i funktsionirovanie (pp. 67–82). Saint-Petersburg: Akademiia. Kostomarov, V.G. (1999) Iazykovoi vkus epokhi. Saint-Petersburg: Zlatoust. Kostomarov, V.G. (2015) Iazyk tekushchego momenta: Poniatie pravil’nosti. Saint-Petersburg: Zlatoust. Krongauz, M. (2007) Russkii iazyk na grani nervnogo sryva. Moscow: Znak/Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur. Krysin, L.P. (2000) O nekotorykh izmeneniiakh v russkom iazyke XX veka. Issledovaniia po slavianskim iazykam 5 (pp. 9–14). Matthews, W.K. (1960) Russian Historical Grammar. London: Athlone Press. Mechkovskaia, N. (2006) Demokratizatsiia iazykov: faktory, kollizii i al’ternativy. In Acta Neophilologica VIII (pp. 129−138). Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo UWM. Milroy, J. (2001) Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4), 530–555. Mustajoki, A. (1988) O predmete i tseli lingvisticheskikh issledovanii. In Ju.N. Karaulov (ed.) Iazyk: Sistema i funktsionirovanie (pp. 170−181). Moscow: Nauka. Mustajoki, A. (2006) The Integrum database as a powerful tool in research on contemporary Russian. In G. Nikiporets-Takigava (ed.) Integrum: tochnye metody i gumanitarnye nauki (pp. 50–75). Moscow: Letni sad.

Challenges in the Standardisation of Contemporary Russian

301

Mustajoki, A. (2010) Types of non-standard communication encounters with special reference to Russian. In M. Lähteenmäki and M. Vanhala-Aniszewski (eds) Language Ideologies in Transition: Multilingualism in Russia and Finland (pp. 101−121). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mustajoki, A. (2013) Raznovidnosti russkogo iazyka: analiz i klassifikatsiia. Voprosy iazykoznaniia 5, 3−27. Mustajoki, A. and Vepreva, I.T. (2006) Kakoe ono, modnoe slovo: k voprosu o parametrakh iazykovoi mody. Russki iazyk za rubezhom 2, 45–63. Mustajoki, A., Protassova, E. and Vakhtin, N. (eds) (2010) Instrumentarium of Linguistics: Sociolinguistic Approaches to Non-Standard Russian (= Slavica Helsingiensia 34). Helsinki: Helsinki University. Pavlenko, A. (2008a) Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 3–4, 275−314. Pavlenko, A. (2008b) Russian in post-Soviet countries. Russian Linguistics 32, 59–80. Preston, D.R. (2002) Language with an attitude. In J.K. Chambers, P. Trudgill and N. Schilling-Estes (eds) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (pp. 40–66). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pyykkö, R. (2010) Language policy as a means of integration in Russia. In M. Lähteenmäki and M. Vanhala-Aniszewski (eds) Language Ideologies in Transition: Multilingualism in Russia and Finland (pp. 81−100). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Ratsiburskaia, L.V. (2008) Strukturno-funktsionalnye osobennosti novoobrazovanii v sovremennykh sredstvakh massovoi informatsii. In M.A. Kormilitsynaia and O.B. Sirotinina (eds) Problemy rechevoi kommunikatsii, vyp. 8 (pp. 48–59). Saratov: Izd. Satatovskogo un-ta. Ryazanova-Clarke, L. (2006a) The crystallisation of structure: Linguistic culture in Putin’s Russia. In I. Lunde and T. Roesen (eds) Landslide of the Norm: Language Culture in Post-Soviet Russia (pp. 31–63) (= Slavica Bergensnsia 6). Bergen: University of Bergen. Ryazanova-Clarke, L. (2006b) ‘The state turning to language’: Power and identity in Russian language policy today. Russian Language Journal 56, 37–55. Ryazanova-Clarke, L. (2014) Introduction: The Russian language, challenged by globalisation. In L. Ryazanova-Clarke (ed.) The Russian Language Outside the Nation (pp. 1−30). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ryazanova-Clarke, L. and Wade, T. (1999) The Russian Language Today. London/ New York: Routledge. Schaeken, J. (2012) Stemmen op Berkenbast. Berichten uit Middeleeuws Rusland: Dagelijks Leven en Communicatie. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Seargeant, P. (2009) Language ideology, language theory, and the regulation of linguistic behavior. Language Sciences 31, 345−359. Shcherba, L.V. ([1974] 2007) Iazykovaia sistema i rechevaia deiatel’nost’. Moscow: KomKniga. Taylor, T.J. (1990) Which is to be master? The institutionalisation of authority in the science of language. In J.E. Joseph and T.J. Taylor (eds). Ideologies of Language (pp. 9−26). London: Routledge. Tschernochvostoff, G. (1947) Zum Ursprung der Glagolica (Master’s Thesis). Helsinki University. (Republished by J. Nuorluoto in Studia Slavica Finlandensia XII, pp. 141−150. Helsinki: Venäjän ja Itä-Euroopan instituutti, 1995.) Vakhtin, N.B., Mustajoki, A. and Protasova, E. (2010) Russkie iazyki. In A. Mustajoki, E. Protassova and N. Vakhtin (eds) Instrumentarium of Linguistics: Sociolinguistic Approaches to Non-Standard Russian (pp. 5−16) (= Slavica Helsingiensia 34). Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Valgina, M.S. (2001) Aktivnye protsessy v sovremennom russkom iazyke. Moscow: Logos.

302

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Vanhala-Aniszewski, M. (2010) Unity or diversity? The language ideology debate in Russian media texts. In M. Lähteenmäki and M. Vanhala-Aniszewski (eds) Language Ideologies in Transition: Multilingualism in Russia and Finland (pp. 101−121). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Wingender, M., Barkijević, I. and Müller, D. (2010) Korpuslinguistische Untersuchungen von Standardsprachenmerkmalen. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Standardologie. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 67 (1), 125–161. Woolhiser, C. (2014) The Russian language in Belarus: Language use, speaker identities and metalinguistic discourse. In L. Ryazanova-Clarke (ed.) The Russian Language outside the Nation (pp. 81−116). Edinburgh: University Press. Zemskaia, E.A. (1987) Russkaia razgovornaia rech’: Lingvisticheskii analiz i problemy obucheniia. Moscow: Russkii iazyk. Zemskaia, E.A. (1996) Vvedenie. In Ruskii iazyk kontsa XX stoletiia (pp. 9–14). Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury.

19 Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology Loreta Vaicekauskiene˙

Introduction When preparing this chapter, I came across a novel by Valerij Votrin (2012) which depicts a ruling regime of speech therapists.1 For every official position, every candidate selected by the party had to be examined for speech correctness. If they turned out not to conform to the set norm (which was almost always the case), they had to take a course of language correction. The chances of successful treatment were small, and hundreds of promising candidates ended their lives rendered speechless and confined to many of the country’s special hospitals. A struggle arose against this rule, yet the variety of opposing movements themselves stemmed from peculiar language cults. There is no doubt that this anti-utopia found inspiration in the history of linguistic prescriptivism in Russia. It struck me, however, how much it reminds us of the current Lithuanian language standardisation ideas and practices. Assuming that language ideology is always a subject of sociopolitical processes, I will argue in this chapter that official Lithuanian language ideology has been affected by the Soviet tradition. In the official discourse, Lithuanian language policies are presented as comparable to those of any other European country, particularly those of France or Iceland (e.g. Smetonienė, 2002). Yet, when viewed from the current European perspective, language regimentation and a cult-like propaganda of language correctness, backed by scholarly authority, seem to form an exceptional case. Although France and Iceland may be exclusive as well, at least in terms of deeply ingrained prescriptive attitudes (cf. Lodge, 1991; Leonard & Árnason, 2011), neither the involvement of professional linguists nor the scope of language corrections in these communities can

303

304

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

compare to the state-authorised Lithuanian prescriptivism. Instead of being made an object for professional discussion, contemporary governmental language ideology in Lithuania is developed and maintained by linguists themselves, who act as setters of norms and regulations in the name of the state and the scholarship. As it has been claimed elsewhere (Raila & Subačius, 2012; Šepetys, 2012a), these distinguishing features might have developed as a consequence of almost 50 years of Soviet occupation of Lithuania after the Second World War. In this chapter, I will show how language regimentation and an ideological linguistic framework, developed during the Soviet regime, became an integral part of official language correction practices in postSoviet Lithuania. Alongside a descriptive account of the contemporary language legislation, my empirical focus will be on professional discourse, constructed by linguists and language planners, more specifically, on professional discursive representation of language regulation in the country, of scholarly authority and of the role of the linguist as a norm constructor. The data draws on a representative electronic corpus of Lithuanian texts on language standardisation issues, including more than a thousand complete historical accounts, reports, reviews, documents, articles from public debates, language correction and ideological publications, that were published in language planning periodicals and internet sources (websites of language institutions and internet portals) in the period from 1960 to 2014. I combined keyword and type of author searches, limiting the authors to professional linguists and including ‘norm’, ‘normalisation’, ‘standardisation’, ‘correctness’ and ‘planning’ among the keywords. A qualitative analysis of the retrieved text excerpts as well as of the broader context of the publication was performed. Before going to the analysis of the specific traits of Lithuanian language engineering, I will briefly review the conditions that seem to unite several European standard language communities in terms of a stronger prescriptive attitude.

Social, Political and Cultural Conditions Fostering European Prescriptivism Typologically speaking, European standard language ideology includes universal features, developed in certain historical periods and political systems. Depending on dominating cultural models and types of nationalism, the language ideology may be based on rationalist or romantic ideas, according to which the pure standard is regarded either as the best means of national communication or as a key for survival of the ethnic state. In nation states that were formed by 19th-century national movements, the romantic model is dominant (cf. Coulmas, 1989;

Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology

305

Blommaert & Verschueren, 1998; Geeraerts, 2003; Moschonas, 2004; Bermel, 2007). It has been claimed that among small eastern nations like Lithuania, the idea of language as a vitally important element of ethnic identity has found particular appeal (Buhr et al., 2014: 146−147). Particularly communities that have been subjected to political and linguistic domination and were late in their standard language development tend to support the idea of language authenticity and purity (Thomas, 1991: 203; Fishman, 2006: 108). Among these are many eastern and central European communities (Subačius, 2002; Buhr et al., 2014), but also, for instance, Faroese, Finnish and Icelandic (Petersen, 2007; Sandøy, 2009: 72). In fact, any identity crisis, even in an established standard language community (e.g. the economic weakening of a state, the loss of colonies or a reduced role in geopolitics) can provoke a defensive language policy (Shelly, 1999: 306−307). Obviously, the centrality of an authentic standard language as a national symbol is noticeable in newly formed or restored nation states, i.e. post-Yugoslavia or the post-Eastern bloc (cf. Greenberg, 2004; Spitzmüller, 2007; Friedman, 2009; Busch, 2010). In the communities where language shift had taken place, the common decision to revive the national language may include extensive gatekeeping practices in the target variety (see accounts of Ukraine and Ireland in Friedman, 2009; Ó hIfearnáin & Ó Murchadha, 2011). Due to (symbolic) domination by the majority language, a stronger prescriptivist attitude can also develop in language communities placed outside the titular nation state, such as the Swedish in Finland, the Flemish in Belgium or the Austrians (cf. Van de Velde et al., 1997: 364; Sandøy, 2009: 81). All over Europe, one may notice language ideologies taking the shape of romantic metaphor and evoking protectionist attitudes in connection with supposed new threats like accelerated globalisation and the spread of English (e.g. Blommaert, 2010). Typically, modern linguistics dissociates from the folk-linguistic concerns about language preservation from externally or internally induced changes (e.g. Ager, 1990: 231; Cameron, 1995; Wardhaugh, 1999; Milroy, 2001; Fishman, 2006). Yet, in the course of history, there have been attempts to qualify language planning as a scholarly subject. The members of the Prague Linguistic Circle were among the pioneering practitioners of language engineering during the 1930s. Opposing xenophobic prescriptivism of the Czech language norm-setters, they developed language codification principles based on a functionalist and descriptive approach to the standard language norm (Thomas, 1996: 196-199; Daneš, 1997, 2006). Thirty years later, a model of language standardisation was introduced by Einar Haugen. It included four processes, which can be seen as overlapping or as a grid (cf. Haugen, 1966 as referred to in Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2012): selection of a national variety, codification of the standard variants and elaboration of language function, all of them relying on a governmental

306

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

decision and acceptance or implementation of the standard language in the speech community. Although an authoritative approach to language standardisation has been adopted by several European governments for a period after the Second World War (cf. Ó hIfearnáin & Ó Murchadha, 2011: 97; Sandøy, 2011: 121; Jaspers & Van Hoof, 2013), in current language planning perspectives, earlier models of centralised expert-based language engineering pursuing economic and educational goals seem to have lost ground. Both Prague and Haugen’s approaches have been reviewed critically for the top-down attitude and lack of attention to speakers’ values and choices (see Thomas, 1996: 201−202; Daneš, 1997: 203−204; Coupland & Kristiansen, 2011: 20−23). All sociocultural and political factors mentioned affect the prescriptivist attitudes of the Lithuanian language community as well. The country was dominated by the Russian Empire from 1795 until the establishment of the Lithuanian Republic in 1918. After the last rebellion in 1864, Russia imposed a ban on the Roman alphabet, ordering the use of Cyrillic in printing, which lasted until 1904. It was during the national rebirth at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries that a dialect was selected for the Lithuanian standard language. Not only the ideas of German romanticism but also the qualities of Lithuanian as a language with well-preserved protoIndo-European features, discovered within historical linguistics at that time, nourished the preservationist and cult-like orientation of the Lithuanian national movement (cf. Spires, 1999). In 1940 and during the period 1944−1990, occupation by the Soviets threatened the status of the Lithuanian language once again. Against the historical circumstances discussed, it is not surprising that as soon as Lithuania regained independence in 1990, concerns for the national language focused on ensuring its governmental protection. In the following sections, I will first present the body of language legislation developed in the post-1990 period and then explore its ideological origins dating back to the Soviet period.

Language Regimentation in post-1990 Lithuania After independence, the official status of Lithuanian as the state language was re-established and the laws requiring use of Lithuanian for public purposes were introduced together with requirements for proficiency in the language for all public officials who had not had an education in Lithuanian and had mainly used Russian with their customers during the Soviet time. The remaining two Baltic states, Latvia and Estonia, underwent a very similar development (cf. Hogan-Brun et al., 2008). However, before long, in Lithuania the laws were supplemented with language corpus regulations, thus making language correction a legally sanctioned issue.

Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology

307

A State Language Commission (henceforth, the Commission) was established in 1990, mainly consisting of professional linguists, and very soon it was officially authorised to approve correct language norms. Although, as mentioned above, the initial motivation for making the Lithuanian language official had to do with the issues of protecting language status, the focus shifted to purification of the language corpus. The mandate of the Commission is laid down in the Law on State Language (henceforth, the Law), which makes all its decisions mandatory and legally binding. The Law includes a chapter on language correctness, declaring, among other things: The State shall enhance the prestige of the correct Lithuanian language and provide conditions for protecting linguistic norms; The State Commission of the Lithuanian Language shall […] approve linguistic norms; Mass media of Lithuania (the press, television, radio, etc.), all publishers of books and other publications must observe the norms of the correct Lithuanian language. (DOC, [1995] 2002) This powerful legal instrument reveals the idea and the nature of the official standard language ideology in Lithuania as follows: (1) language is in need of governmental regulation; (2) state authorised experts (linguists) have to undertake the ideological and norm-setting function. A well-known example of the ‘protection of linguistic norms’ as passed by the Commission is Didžiųjų kalbos klaidų sąrašas ‘List of Major Language Errors’, which includes hundreds of grammatical and lexical variants as well as requirements for a standard Lithuanian pronunciation. Even more voluminous are a series of occasionally updated language recommendations. Although ‘recommendation’ presupposes an optional character of this language planning means, due to enforcing language regimentation, prescriptions from these publications are also considered obligatory. Among the errors corrected by the Commission, are also variants of dialectal origin. Besides its norm codification function, the Commission exercises some language control. For instance, having the Education ministry’s mandate, it assesses the language of all school textbooks. When the subject of a textbook is the Lithuanian language, the Commission also would approve the contents of the textbook. Obviously, following the Commission’s language norms and adjustments is mandatory. The requirements include adaptation of the terms approved by the Commission and indication of stressed syllables by a pitch accent in all terms and place names mentioned in the textbook.2 When publishing a textbook, publishers have to include

308

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

a note which states that the publication ‘conforms to the requirements of language correctness’ (DOC, [2003] 2012). 3 Recent initiatives taken by the Commission include language regimentation in academia. Public language control is carried out by the State Language Inspectorate (henceforth, the Inspectorate) and locally by municipal language inspectors. Most employees in these positions have a university background in Lithuanian philology. The Inspectorate has developed a methodology for monitoring how institutions and enterprises, the press, radio and television and publishing houses as well as advertisements and company names follow the language requirements set up by the Commission. It determines disciplinary measures, comprising an ‘official letter’ (in case of a completed language inspection, identifying what must be corrected), an ‘order’ (notifying that non-adherence to this document imposes legal liability), a ‘monitoring report’ (providing information about the results of the inspection), an ‘inspection statement’ (drawn up when infringements of the norms are detected) and an imposed ‘administrative penalty’. The final sanction is worth quoting in translation: ‘An administrative penalty is the means of answerability which is applied in order to punish persons who committed an offence under the administrative law, and which has the purpose of enforcing adherence to the laws and serves as a preventative, so that neither the offender nor any other person would commit new language violations’ (DOC, 2005). Non-compliance with the Commission’s regulations or with the language inspectors’ directions can impose fines.4 Public reports are regularly published with lists of errors, specifying the names of the so-called transgressors. Implementing the task of ‘preservation and control of correctness and use of the state language’, which has been repeatedly declared in the strategic plans of the Ministry of Culture (DOC, 2007−2017), the Inspectorate claims that it has been obtaining the planned effect of correct language increase every year. Besides governmental institutions, several politicised language protection organisations, including quite a few linguists among their members, as well as the public association of linguists Lithuanian Language Society (henceforth, the Society) endeavour to establish one’s legitimacy as Lithuanian language guardians and ideologists. Obviously, the Society regards the official language control system as unsatisfactory. Although it has no official authority, it may undertake language monitoring and issue public reports. What would very likely strike an external observer exploring Lithuanian prescriptivism in a broader European context is the scope of the bureaucratic state regulation of speakers, though this overview offers one more interesting facet. It is obvious that in Lithuania the decision on what is legitimate as a standard language norm is mainly the monopoly of linguists, acting either as authors of prescriptive ideological guidelines and legal documents, members of state, public or political institutions or

Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology

309

sometimes both. The fact that the set standard norm has to be upheld by powerful legislative supervision indicates that we are dealing with a struggle for authority rather than with a linguistic concern. It is also obvious that something is wrong with the norm-setting when the language use of any institution or individual is seen as subject to language correction. In the following sections, I shall review language regulation practices in Soviet Lithuania as they had been documented in the professional reports on language planning and will proceed to explore the ideological framework behind the notion of language norm, developed in the Soviet period and presumably taken over into independent Lithuania.

’Back in the USSR’: Language Protection as Exercise of Power When comparing contemporary Lithuanian language supervision to that of the Soviet period, the typological similarity seems striking. Ironically enough, the continuity of the practices is emphasised by language institutions and the linguists themselves. As has been noted by Nerijus Šepetys (2012b: 211–212), a comprehensive historical overview of the Commission’s activities on its homepage begins with the foundation of a Language Commission by the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party in 1961. Also for the Society, which dates back to the independent pre-Second World War Lithuanian Republic, language normalisation work is seen as being ‘straight and integral’ during the Soviet period to this day (Pupkis, 2003). Historical documents reveal, however, that the Soviet institutions are hardly comparable with those of independent pre-war Lithuania. The pre-war Society engaged in educational activities, whereas its Soviet successor was part of a governmental institution with a nationwide structure of language sections locally undertaking the function of public language control. Periodicals were issued, as well as radio and television programmes offering language prescription, and publications correcting language use were centrally distributed by the national and the local press. From their very formation onwards, gradually expanding Soviet language sections targeted all spheres and spaces: the language of the mass media and public signs, product information in shops, public transport, post offices and markets, professional language, language used in schools, documents of enterprises, language spoken at meetings in the workplace as well as the language of employees in different service sectors and holiday resorts, even everyday private language use (see Pupkis [1980] and DOC [1987] for an overview of the activities of language sections during 1968−1971). It seems that linguists, deliberately targeting all possible spheres and spaces of language usage, enjoyed powerful authority. As was pointed out by

310

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Raila and Subačius (2012: 24), the Soviet language regulation practices were the ‘rudiments of the idea of a language inspectorate’ (cf., however, a less critical assessment in Rinholm, 1990). Today, Soviet language regimentation is presented as a ‘language preservation movement’ – a risky work under the Russification regime (Pupkis, 2003). There is no doubt that many linguists were indeed held hostage by the system. 5 But it is also obvious that by closely collaborating with the authorities, organising so-called language raids and extending control over speakers, the linguists served (and took advantage of?) the system for which not the language, but Soviet mentality and a life of mistrust and fear was the goal. Analysis of archive protocols of the Soviet language commission and primary party organisations revealed that during the Soviet period language standardisation issues were closely related to the official ideology; the Soviet commission had a mandate to control how language was used and its decisions were mandatory (Šepetys, 2012a). Studies in Sovietology leave no doubt about how systematically public life was controlled by the authorities. Hence, today’s nostalgic memories of the golden times, when all public language was monitored and pre-edited (Pupkis, 2005: 335), when language specialists enjoyed ‘true respect’ (Miliūnaitė, 2010) and when ‘the whole progressive society […], from flower sellers to party workers’ was in the habit of consulting linguists (Paulauskienė, 2012), suggest that possession of power remains one of the driving forces behind current Lithuanian language cultivation. In the next section, I will discuss how this power was justified by the use of scholarly authority.

Soviet Roots of Today’s Ideological Linguistic Framework: Linguists as Norm Constructors As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, attempts have been made to create scholarly principles of standard language-norm engineering by the Prague Linguistic Circle. The pre-war Lithuanian linguists who had to lay the foundation for Lithuanian language planning followed norm codification principles formulated by Prague and considered the functionality of linguistic variants in contemporary usage (Skardžius, 1997: 52–77). In this respect, the Prague school approach was compatible with that of Haugen and modern linguistics, for which, regardless of a conceptual framework or whether one deals with grammar rules or sociocultural or contextual norms of speech, a norm is a language fact that is derived from the native usage of concrete language strata (cf. Bartsch, 1982). Considering such norms provides a basis for standard norm engineering. However, at some point the foundations for these principles were changed. In the current Lithuanian framework, the focus of codification

Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology

311

was shifted from norm selection in usage to norm construction by linguists (cf. Šepetys, 2012a). For instance, the latest proposal of amendments to the Law lists ‘normative grammars, normative and approved dictionaries, resolutions of language institutions and recommendations of linguists’ as the sources of norms (DOC, 2006). Numerous publications on language standardisation from the Soviet period might give a clue as to how the standard language norm was moved into an autonomous and self-sufficient perspective of a linguist. To justify this shift, scholarly authority was used for the benefit of language planners.6 According to Šepetys (2012a: 12), the Soviets typically adopted a concept and later fundamentally changed its essence. In fact, actual language use was not eliminated as a valid source of norms. On the contrary, it was acknowledged in all principal language standardisation publications. Just on one new condition – the usage should not be ‘uncultivated’ and ‘untrained’ (Pupkis & Stundžia, 1987: 52). Following this ideology, in numerous publications by professional linguists, criticism was directed towards educated speakers who did not practise enough to fulfil their duty of disseminating the corrected language norms into usage. The codified variants were referred to as ‘traditional’ and ‘entrenched’, despite the fact that they were not observed in usage, but rather constructed as corrections of usage. According to the logic of Soviet prescriptivists, the norms were labelled traditional in terms of decades of corrections by linguists. The scholarly authority was strongly emphasised. Speakers who disregarded ‘the theoretical foundations of correct usage’ (Paulauskienė, 1968: 31), who ‘rejected the tradition of standardisation’ and who ‘gave in to temptation to trust the usage’ (Klimavičius, 1987: 27) were heavily criticised. In the following quotation, dictionary editors are blamed for their attempts to introduce norms that are based on actual usage: We are not altogether denying the right of a dictionary editor to adjust the norms. [New proposals] could be acceptable, if two main principles would be followed […] – stability and authority of codification manuals and linguists. (Pupkis & Stundžia, 1987: 49) The meaning of the codification principle ‘norm stability’ was adjusted to the Soviet prescriptivist ideology as well. Being a natural condition for efficient communication within a community, the norms are stable in that they change gradually and in a largely undetected way. Precisely for this reason, the codification principle of norm stability implies a warning for the norm-setters not to codify variants that were not established in (written) usage. In the newspeak of the Soviets, ‘norm stability’ was consistently turned into an obligation for speakers to disown the community norms and to implement the prescriptive norms that had been ‘stable’ within the language correction manuals.

312

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

In the USSR, the ‘fight for language purity’ was a significant element of the propaganda machine, serving the political goals of the party (cf. Basovskaja, 2011). It was a natural part of a set of general inclusive regulations, concealed by a ‘cultivation of culture’ and ‘societal progress’, as illustrated by these quotations: Who has developed a need […] to cultivate his language culture as a part of cultivation of one’s personality, that person will find the guidance. These are fundamental normative works – academic grammar, academic and other dictionaries, various popular scientific articles, TV and radio broadcasts and columns on language in periodicals. (Drotvinas, 1986: 49) The fight for language and its prosperity is also a fight for the essence of culture and its prosperity. […] Language brings together and unifies the nation, it mobilises people for the fight for societal progress. (Ulvydas, 1974: 5) The collectivist approach to a national language, as common for the ‘whole society’, justified intervening at all linguistic levels (cf. Lewis, 2012: 313– 319). In the context of the deprivation of individual rights and nationalisation of private property, the assertion that the Lithuanian language is a national property of the people (DOC, 1987) made in the initiatory meeting of the language section in Vilnius speaks for itself. However, although the prescriptivists had much power during the Soviet period, they could only control what was approved and dictated by Moscow (Šepetys, 2012a). Official institutional authority was acquired when Lithuania regained independence. Hence, the linguists took the role of a – now official – expert institute determining the means of language protection from what they saw as degrading on the onset of, as it was termed, the ‘so-called democracy’ (e.g. Appeal of the Society in DOC, 1992: 30). The demands for unconditional obedience from the speakers, as if no political shift had taken place, as well as references to how important it was to return to the language cult that was formed during the Soviet period (Paulauskienė, 1998; Pupkis, 1990) seem a natural, but still surprising outcome of the development. A legal system of language regimentation was established and the idea of a language norm as constructed by linguists was transferred unchanged to the official Lithuanian standardisation ideology at the end of the 20th century. Newly developed institutional orders such as the above-mentioned List of Major Language Errors were added to the list of the approved sources of the language norm. Today, the circular logic of the Soviet ideology is applied as well, claiming that only when actual usage is fully adjusted to the prescriptive norms will it be regarded as a proper norm source. As under the Soviet regime, prescriptive practices and manuals continue to be termed ‘theory of language cultivation’ and ‘scholarly truth’

Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology

313

(Pupkis & Smalinskas, 1993: 2–3). The following quotation demonstrates the persisting application of the Soviet collectivist ideology and attempts to justify powerful legal coercion against speakers: [The Law] is like a shield, which protects the Lithuanian language from various distorters. It is by no means anachronistic. Every sober citizen understands that a language can only perform all its functions successfully in a state and in society when it is correct and cultivated. […] [We will not remove the correctness requirement] as long not only journalists, public officials, publishers of books and other publications, teachers, but also politicians and all authorities will not obey the requirements of correct language. (Rosinas, 2005: 3) Soviet language ideologists did not worry about the enshrining of language norms by laws (see Ulvydas, 1977). Yet, under democratic conditions, such an ambitious language correction project is hardly possible otherwise than by force of law. Apparently, repeating current appeals to obey the authority of language experts have been enhanced by growing public criticism of the language regime since the very first years of regained independence. Time has shown that the post-Soviet system of language institutionalisation had an inherent potential of reproduction. In independent Lithuania, the official apparatus of language supervision has been brought to a degree of perfection which the pioneering Soviet prescriptivists could only dream of.

Conclusion The historical sociocultural and political circumstances that had an impact on the formation of the Lithuanian standard language ideology carry the potential of a highly prescriptive and preservative approach to the national language. Its features include repeated references to the weak status of the Lithuanian language, late standard language engineering and exposure to German romanticism encouraging the idea of the symbolic historical value of the language. Not denying this ideological charge, I have claimed that the 50-year Soviet occupation of Lithuania has added a specific flavour to contemporary Lithuanian prescriptivism as seen in a current European perspective. Among the conspicuous features entrenched during the Soviet time is the persecution of speakers for failing to adopt an engineered language norm, the use of scholarly authority for the justification of this governmentally sanctioned language engineering and the role of linguists as the principal ideologists and norm-constructors. By their very nature, current Lithuanian language standardisation ideas and regulations are parallel to those of the period of Soviet occupation. For the Soviets, massive regulation of citizens and manipulating scholarship was normal administrative and ideological practice. At that

314

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

time, Lithuanian linguists were authorised to exercise extensive language monitoring. In the very same period, the notion of a language norm was irrevocably linked to the institutionalised expertise possessed by linguists. The norm was turned to an autonomous construct, which does not rely on the facts of contemporary usage but instead is assessed from the inner perspective of the expert. Legitimate norm sources were constructed and the requirement has been set that all language users have to consult them. Due to historical circumstances, this sensitive language issue became an integral part of the liberation of the nation. Consequently, the exercised practices of Soviet language regulation were adopted. This can hardly be explained by lack of reflection, since at that very time many state institutions, as well as the humanities and the social sciences, underwent desovietisation. It is quite possible that the Soviets succeeded in artificially maintaining and entrenching the romantic cult of language to which the need of institutional state protection was added. To question this at the time of national rebirth was apparently unthinkable. Naturally, such an ambitious project of language correction would have been impossible without extensive governmental and legislative support. It could persist during the Soviet regime, but in a democracy, as illogical as it may sound, it had to be enforced by legal instruments. Although in the official language standardisation discourse an argument can be found that the actual fining of speakers or institutions when they fail to live up to the language regulations happens only rarely, the very fact of the existence of penalties for language uses is symptomatic. Featuring a combination of a romantic and preservationist language cult and powerful state regulation, Lithuanian prescriptivism can serve as a good reference to significant transformations induced to a lingua-centric nation state by a communist regime. It is my hope that the Lithuanian case study presented here will add some new insights and dimensions to the typological study of prescriptivism in Europe.

Notes (1) (2)

Thanks to Professor Natalija Arlauskaitė for the reference. Lithuanian is characterised by regular shifts of stress in conjugation and declension paradigms. The requirement addresses dialectal stress patterns that deviate from the codified ones. (3) Here and throughout this chapter, translations from Lithuanian have been provided by myself. (4) Most broadcasting companies, publishers and enterprises employ professional language editors to ensure compliance to the set languages norms. (5) As noted by Basovskaja (2011: 151), the concept of ‘language purity’ was not directly associated with the sphere of politics, and therefore most people received it uncritically. (6) During Soviet times, Lithuanian language planning was built on the so-called Language Culture, a new discipline, formed within Soviet linguistics to actualise and propagate issues of language cultivation (cf. Basovskaja, 2011: 113−114).

Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology

315

References Primary sources

DOC (1987) Vilniaus m. kalbos sekcijai – 20 metų (1987). Mūsų kalba 6, 27–44. DOC (1992) Lietuvių kalbos draugijos taryba (1992) Brangieji Lietuvos žmonės! Gimtoji kalba 1, 30. DOC ([1995] 2002) The Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Language. See http://www3. lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=275246 (accessed 5 May 2014). DOC (2005) Valstybinės kalbos vartojimo ir taisyklingumo kontrolės principai. See http:// www3.lrs.lt/docs2/EPAGLDJV.PDF (accessed 5 May 2014). DOC (2006) Valstybinės kalbos įstatymo pakeitimo Įstatymo projektas (2006). See http:// www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=274470&p_tr2=2 (accessed 5 May 2014). DOC (2007−2017) Kultūros ministerijos strateginiai veiklos planai. See http://www.lrkm.lt/ go.php/lit/Planai (accessed 15 May 2014). DOC ([2003] 2012) Vadovėlių kalbos taisyklingumo vertinimo tvarkos aprašas. See http:// www.vlkk.lt/lit/86896 (accessed 5 May 2014). Drotvinas, V. (1986) “Kalbos kultūra” – mokyklai. Kalbos kultūra 51, 47–50. Klimavičius, J. (1987) Lakūnai su šlemofonais, gastronomai, geriantys aperatyvą. Mūsų kalba 1, 23−28. Miliūnaitė, R. (2010) Naujų kalbos reiškinių poveikis lietuvių kalbai ir kalbinei savimonei. See http://www.kalbosnamai.lt (accessed 5 May 2014). Paulauskienė, A. (1968) Dar kartą apie netaisyklingą prielinksnių vartojimą. Kalbos kultūra 14, 31−33. Paulauskienė, A. (1998) Tautinė mokykla ir beraštė tauta. Gimtoji kalba 1, 1−3. Paulauskienė, A. (2012) Gimtoji kalba: didžiavimasis ja ir išdavystė. See www. mokslasplius.lt/mokslo-lietuva [2012 08 16] (accessed 10 October 2014). Pupkis, A. (1980) Kurortinių miestų viešoji kalba. Mūsų kalba 1, 31−35. Pupkis, A. (1990) Pradėjome lietuvių kalbos metus. Gimtoji kalba 1, 8–9. Pupkis, A. (2003) Keletas atsiminimų iš “Mūsų kalbos” laikų. Gimtoji kalba 12, 22−25. Pupkis, A. (2005) Kalbos kultūros studijos. Vilnius: Gimtasis žodis. Pupkis, A. and Smalinskas, D. (1993) Valstybinės kalbos ugdymo reikalai. Gimtoji kalba 4–5, 1–4. Pupkis, A. and Stundžia, B. (1987) Žvilgsnis į tarties žodyną kodifikacijos ir vartosenos požiūriu. Kalbos kultūra 53, 44–57. Rosinas, A. (2005) Valstybinės kalbos įstatymo dešimtmetis. Gimtoji kalba 2, 3–4. Skardžius, P. (1997) Rinktiniai raštai, Vol. II. Vilnius: MELI. Smetonienė, I. (2002) Kalbos ir kultūros reikalai. Gimtoji kalba 11−12, 3–9. Ulvydas, K. (1974) Kalbos visuomeninė esmė. Kalbos kultūra 27, 3–5. Ulvydas, K. (1977) Apie kalbos normą. Kalbos kultūra 33, 3−12.

Secondary sources

Ager, D. (1990) Sociolinguistics and Contemporary French. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Bartsch, R. (1982) The concepts rule’ and ‘norm’ in linguistics. Lingua 58 (1−2), 51–81. Basovskaja, J. (2011) Sovetskaja Pressa – za “Čistotu Jazyka”: 60 Let Bor’by. Moskva: Naučnoje Izdanije. Bermel, N. (2007) Linguistic Authority, Language Ideology, and Metaphor: The Czech Orthography Wars. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Blommaert, J. (2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

316

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Blommaert, J. and Verschueren, J. (1998) The role of language in European nationalist ideologies. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard and P.V. Kroskrity (eds) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (pp. 189−210). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buhr, R., Fabrykant, M.S. and Hoffman, S.M. (2014) The measure of a nation: Lithuanian identity in the new century. Journal of Baltic Studies 45 (2), 143−168. Busch, B. (2010) New national languages in Eastern Europe. In N. Coupland (ed.) The Handbook of Language and Globalization (pp. 182–200). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge. Coulmas, F. (1989) Democracy and the crisis of normative linguistics. In F. Coulmas (ed.) Language Adaptation (pp. 177−193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coupland, N. and Kristiansen, T. (2011) SLICE: Critical perspectives on language (de) standardization. In T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds) Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 11−35). Oslo: Novus. Daneš, F. (1997) Was geschieht mit dem heutigen Tschechischen (Triebkräfte und Perspektiven). In K.J. Mattheier and E. Radtke (Hrsg) Standardisierung und Destandardisierung Europäischer Nationalsprachen (pp. 201−213). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Daneš, F. (2006) Sprachpflege/Language cultivation. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K.J. Mattheier and P. Trudgill (eds) Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society (Vol. 3; pp. 2453−2461). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fishman, J.A. (2006) DO NOT Leave Your Language Alone: The Hidden Status Agendas within Corpus Planning in Language Policy. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Friedman, D.A. (2009) Speaking correctly: Error correction as a language socialization practice in a Ukrainian classroom. Applied Linguistics 31 (3), 346−367. Geeraerts, D. (2003) Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In R. Dirven, R. Frank and M. Pütz (eds) Cognitive Models in Language and Thought. Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings (pp. 25–68). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Greenberg, R.D. (2004) Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and Its Disintegration. New York: Oxford University Press. Haugen, E. (1966) Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68, 922–935. Repr. J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics (pp. 97−111). London: Penguin. Hogan-Brun, G., Ozolins, U., Ramonienė, M. and Rannut, M. (2008) Language politics and practices in the Baltic states. In R.B. Kaplan and R.B. Baldauf Jr. (eds) Language Planning and Policy in Europe. The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy (pp. 31−192). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jaspers, J. and Van Hoof, S. (2013) Hyperstandardisation in Flanders: Extreme enregisterment and its aftermath. Pragmatics 23, 331−359. Leonard, S.P. and Árnason, K. (2011) Language ideology and standardization in Iceland. In T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds) Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 91–96). Oslo: Novus. Lewis, G. (2012) Implementation of language planning in the Soviet Union. In J. Covarrubias and J.A. Fishman (eds) Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives (pp. 309−326). Tubingen: Walter de Gruyter. Lodge, R.A. (1991) Authority, prescriptivism and the French standard language. Journal of French Language Studies 1, 93−111. Milroy, J. (2001) Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4), 530–555. Moschonas, S.A. (2004) Relativism in language ideology: On Greece’s latest language issue. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 22 (2), 173−206. Ó hIfearnáin, T. and Ó Murchadha, N. (2011) The perception of Standard Irish as a prestige target variety. In T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds) Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 97−104). Oslo: Novus.

Language Regimentation as Soviet Inheritance: Joining Scholarship and State Ideology

317

Petersen, H.P. (2007) Sprog og identitet på Færøern: Et spørgsmål om ord. Språk og Identitet 26, 28−38. Raila, E. and Subačius, P. (2012) Language standardization and forms of ideological education. Lituanus 58 (2), 18−30. Rinholm, H. (1990) Continuity and change in the Lithuanian standard language. In F. István and C. Hagège (eds) Language Reform (pp. 269−300). Hamburg: Buske. Sandøy, H. (2009) Language cultures in the Nordic countries. In M. Maegaard, F. Gregersen, P. Quist and J.N. Jørgensen (eds) Language Attitudes, Standardization and Language Change (pp. 69–87). Oslo: Novus. Sandøy, H. (2011) Language culture in Norway: A tradition of questioning standard language norms. In T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland (eds) Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 119−126). Oslo: Novus. Shelly, S.L. (1999) Une certaine idée du français: The dilemma for French language policy in the 21st century. Language and Communication 19, 305−316. Spires, S. (1999) Lithuanian linguistic nationalism and the cult of antiquity. Nations and Nationalism 5, 485–500. Spitzmüller, J. (2007) Staking the claims of identity: Purism, linguistics and the media in post-1990 Germany. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (2), 261−285. Subačius, G. (2002) Two types of standard language history in Europe. Res Balticae 8, 131−150. Šepetys, N. (2012a) Soviet authorities, linguists, and the standardization of the Lithuanian language. Lituanus 58 (2), 5−17. Šepetys, N. (2012b) Kalbos norminimas sovietų Lietuvoje: Institucijos, ideologija, mokslas. Archivum Lithuanicum 14, 209−226. Thomas, G. (1991) Linguistic Purism. London: Longman Group UK. Thomas, G. (1996) The Prague School theory of language cultivation or purism by the backdoor. Canadian Slavonic Papers 38 (1−2), 195−204. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2012) The codification of English in England. In R. Hickey (ed.) Standards of English. Codified Varieties around the World (pp. 34–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van de Velde, H., van Hout, R. and Gerritsen, M. (1997) Watching Dutch change: A real time study of variation and change in standard Dutch pronunciation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 1 (3), 361−391. Votrin, V. (2012) Logoped. Moskva: Novoje Literaturnoje Obozrenije. Wardhaugh, R. (1999) Proper English. Myths and Misunderstandings about Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

20 Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia Aleksandra Gjurkova

Introduction Status planning alongside corpus planning represents one of the aspects of language planning, as is emphasised by Deumert (Mesthrie et al., 2009: 372), according to a definition based on the main distinction between language as a linguistic system and language as a social institution made by Kloss (1967; cf. Mesthrie et al., 2009: 372). Status planning is linked to the status of particular languages or language varieties in terms of their official usage and political significance within the state. A national language, as is pointed out by Wright (2004: 42), has an important role in the nationbuilding process: as a means of communication that permits the society to function efficiently, and as a cohesion factor of the nation. Speaking the national language thus designates inclusion, i.e. belonging to the nation. With regard to status planning in nation states, Wright (2004: 44) notes that ‘the variety that became de facto the dominant language on a territory did so principally through a protracted political process, developing with the political and economic strength of the speakers of that language and their influence’. A language’s status in the frame of a nation’s language policy is determined by social and economic factors, as well as by political changes and shifts in political power. In some cases, political changes become a cause of changes in the status of a language within a particular society. Schmidt (2007) states the following with regard to this: Language policy gets onto the political agenda when political actors believe that something important is at stake regarding the status and/or use of languages in their society, and that these stakes call for intervention by the state. At the core of the politics of language, I argue, lies a form of identity politics, in which language policy partisans compete to shape public perceptions about the ‘we’ that constitutes the relevant political community, and to embody their aims in the language policy of the state. (Schmidt, 2007: 96)

318

Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia

319

It is important to take into consideration the communities in a particular society, their interrelations and their rights in shaping language status planning. Language status is on the other hand linked to minorities and minority rights, including language rights. In this account of the status of the different languages spoken in Macedonia, the situation with regard to minorities will be taken into consideration, as well as the changes that occurred with regard to the status of minority languages in the Republic of Macedonia. Prescription in the framework of language policy comprises an overview of the legislation regarding the status of the languages used in Macedonia. The implementation of the laws which regulate the status and usage of languages in Macedonia are also of interest in the analysis offered here. The main objective of the present chapter is to review contemporary changes in Macedonian from a sociolinguistic perspective, with regard to the following issues: (1) the Macedonian language in the Constitution and in the laws of the country; (2) the status of Macedonian and other languages spoken in Macedonia; (3) language policy in Macedonia. I will argue that in the process of changes in legislation regarding the status planning of the languages used in Macedonia, important challenges for Macedonian language policy have occurred which resulted in changes to the status of Macedonian.

The Macedonian Language in the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia and in Macedonian Legislation Today Macedonian was promoted to an official language in 1944 in the (then Socialist) Republic of Macedonia in former Yugoslavia, alongside Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian. This may be considered as one of the most important moments in the history of Macedonian language status planning. Although the formal and legislative equality of the three languages in practice meant that Slovenian was used as the official language in Slovenia and Macedonian in Macedonia, Marti (1998: 364) states that ‘[…] apart from Serbo-Croatian, other Standard languages at the state level played only a subordinate role (in the bodies of the central government they were barely used)’ (my translation, here and throughout this chapter).1 Previously, Macedonian was treated as a language used in domestic, i.e. unofficial, situations only. After the signing in 1913 of the Treaty of

320

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Bucharest that ended the Second Balkan War, also known as the Treaty of Peace between Romania and the Central Powers (cf. Texts of the Roumanian ‘Peace’, 1918), parts of Macedonia were divided between Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria. In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (a state of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) the official language was Serbo-Croatian, whereas in Greece in the Aegean part of Macedonia, the use of Macedonian was forbidden even in domestic environments. Spolsky (2012) addresses the issues of language policy and minority rights after the Second World War in Greece in his book Language Policy, where he takes into consideration the use of minority languages spoken in Greece, and Macedonian among them, in the course of which he also refers to the current situation: […] with a long-standing Greek government policy of discouraging the use of Macedonian and strong opposition to the use of the name Macedonia by the nation state of that name. The effect of government oppression has been rapid loss of the language. (Spolsky, 2012: 153) After the independence of Macedonia in 1991, important changes took place with regard to the Macedonian language and its status. The status of Macedonian was regulated by the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia of 1991; in article 7 it is stated that ‘[i]n the Republic of Macedonia the official language is Macedonian and its Cyrillic script’ (The Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia [OGRM] 52/1991). Also, Macedonian became the official language in international relations, as well as in the national army and all other bodies of government. A significant improvement towards opening the public space for electronic and newspaper media has occurred since then, so that the domains of use of Macedonian have broadened as emphasised by Minova-Gjurkova (1998: 17−18). This process emphasised the need for taking action to improve the quality of the language. For this purpose, a law on the use of the Macedonian language (OGRM 5/1998) was enacted in 1998 by the Macedonian Parliament. Regulating the status of Macedonian (and its Cyrillic script) as the official language, declaring its use to be a right of the people of the Republic of Macedonia and emphasizing its cultural and historical meaning for the state, the law stipulates in article 3 that it ‘does not limit the right to free creation and development of the cultural, linguistic and religious identity of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia’. Furthermore, in article 4 it is stated that ‘this law does not limit the right of the citizens which belong to ethnic minorities to official use of the language and script of the minority in the local government units, in concordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia’. The law promotes an improvement in the use of Macedonian in the domains of administration and public communication. Under a proposal of the government and the Ministry of Culture, the Council for the

Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia

321

Macedonian Language was founded, whose activity is also regulated by law. The task of the Council is to issue recommendations and proposals for programmes of improvement, protection and enrichment of the Macedonian language, including the development of terminology in various fields. The Council also edits publications about Macedonian and suggests programmes regarding the improvement and enrichment of the Macedonian language. It engages in preparing and publishing the Bulletin of the Council for Macedonian Language (Bilten na Sovetot za makedonski jazik, 2000–2005), which includes articles mainly on current issues in language use, on teaching methodologies of Macedonian and other sociolinguistic subjects. In article 5 of the Law for the Use of the Macedonian Language, it is stated that apart from the use of Macedonian in government bodies and in the local government, the language is to be used in public places, on signposts, in the synchronisation of foreign language programmes and in international agreements. Article 7 states: ‘The official documents of legislative, executive and judicial government, text books, broadcasts, the press, translations and other texts according to article 5 paragraph 1 of this law, which are published, should be proof-read’ (OGRM 5/1998). Consequently, a committee for testing was formed to implement exams in the field and to assign certificates for proofreaders of Macedonian. The Law for the Use of the Macedonian Language represents a basis for implementing language policies in Macedonia. In 2001, an armed conflict took place which was set off by the UÇK (Ushtria Çlirimtare Kombëtare ‘National Liberation Army’), which legitimised itself as a representative of the Albanian minority (Balalovska et al., 2002; Balalovska, 2006) fighting for greater rights for Albanians in Macedonia. In January 2001, the UÇK, allegedly formed in 2000, which had connections with the Kosovo Liberation Army, claimed responsibility for several attacks on police stations. After the Macedonian−Yugoslav agreement on the demarcation of the border in February 2001, an incident occurred when a television crew in Tanuševci (near Skopje) was captured by a group of armed men, who took the crew’s equipment before releasing them. The police decided to investigate the area, but upon entering the village of Tanuševci, they were fired on, and this marked the beginning of armed conflicts that took place mainly in the north-west areas of Kumanovo and Tetovo. Throughout the conflict, the UÇK emphasised the human rights dimension of their fighting. In explaining the conflict, Balalovska (2006) states: What created room for the F[ramework] A[greement] was the stalemate reached after five months of interrupted fighting and steady progress of the UCK forces in the field. The government realised that Macedonian security forces could not win, and the UCK realised that, after the

322

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

control of a certain territory that matched the one dominated by ethnic Albanians, the Albanian paramilitary could not fight for more. (Balalovska, 2006: 17) The international community insisted that the solution to this situation was to be found in interethnic reconciliation as well as in a conceptual adjustment and change of the Macedonian state, whose survival was in question as a result of the conflicts. The main purpose of the Framework Agreement (FA) was to accommodate Albanian demands perceived as legitimate and to put an end to the conflict. As a result, some significant changes took place in how the Constitution was to regulate the status of the languages spoken in Macedonia. The signing of the FA, the original version of which is in English, came as a result of peace talks undertaken by the President of Macedonia, representatives of Macedonian and Albanian parties and representatives of the international community, the EU and the USA. The FA, as is stated by Balalovska (2006: 18), was to a great extent a product of international pressure and influence. Balalovska (2006), analysing the judicial aspects of this agreement, emphasises that as [a] framework for constitutional and legislative reform, the FA has been the foundation for changes in the use of community languages, decentralisation, parliamentary procedures, local police, the public use of symbols of expression of community identity, and education, aiming to assure ‘Macedonia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity’ (article 1.2. of the FA), while at the same time retaining ‘[t]he multiethnic character of Macedonia’s society’ (article 1.3. of the FA). Nevertheless, it (the FA) is the product of conflict and pressure from one particular community, and its provisions have been primarily directed to guaranteeing the active and efficient participation of Albanians in Macedonian state and society. (Balalovska, 2006: 19) Fifteen amendments (numbered IV–XVIII) to the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia were formulated, which resulted from the FA. They were declared and ratified by the Macedonian Parliament in November 2001. This action marked the end of the conflict, together with the change of the Preamble to the Constitution, including article 7 which regulates the status of the languages used in Macedonia. Thus, according to amendment V enclosed in article 7, a language which is spoken by at least 20% of the population is to be considered an official language (together with its script) at state level: ‘[…] another language which is spoken by at least 20 per cent of the population is considered also an official language and its script’. The article also specifies that ‘any person may use any official language to communicate with a main office of the central government, which shall

Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia

323

reply in that language in addition to Macedonian’, as well as with the local central government bodies (OGRM 91/2001). Bliznakovski (2011), in his analysis of the framework for language rights in Macedonia, writes that the legislative frame regarding the official use of languages is suitable for more than one community at the territory of Macedonia, which depends mostly on the number of those communities. At a central level only one non-majority community ‘qualifies’ for this kind of usage – the Albanian community which makes a little more than 25% of the population in Macedonia. (Bliznakovski, 2011: 141) Moreover, amendment V, which is incorporated in article 7 of the Constitution, states the following: In the local government units the language and script used by at least 20 per cent of the citizens is considered an official language, apart from Macedonian language and its Cyrillic script. The use of the languages and scripts of other citizens which constitute less than 20 per cent of the citizens of a local administrative unit, is to be determined by the local government. (OGRM 91/2001) In the meantime, a law concerning the use of languages spoken by at least 20% of the people of the Republic of Macedonia and the local government units was passed in 2008, regulating the domains of use of minority languages in Macedonia (OGRM 101/2008). As is stated in article 2: ‘In the government bodies in Republic of Macedonia a language other than Macedonian may be used in accordance with this law’. This law was revised in July 2011 to state that Members of Parliament who speak a language other than Macedonian which is also spoken by at least 20% of the people, are allowed to use that language in Parliament and its bodies (OGRM 100/2011). In addition, in the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament, article 71 stipulates that ‘the name of the list submitter, and the name and the surname of the carrier of the list, shall be written in Macedonian and in Cyrillic’, while ‘for the members of the other communities, the name of the submitter, and the name and the surname of the carrier of the list, shall be written in Macedonian and its Cyrillic alphabet, and in the language and alphabet of the community to which they belong’ (OGRM 42/2002). Consequently, ballots at elections are bilingual in the predominantly Albanian communities. Besides this, the laws passed by the Parliament are published in Macedonian and Albanian in OGRM. In addition, there have been changes in the use of Macedonian and Albanian in signage and signposts. Thus, according to article 40 of the law for the use of languages spoken by at least 20% of the population,

324

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

‘[i]n the municipalities where 20% of the citizens use a language other than Macedonian, the names of streets, squares, bridges and other buildings are to be written in Macedonian in Cyrillic script and in the language and script used by at least 20% of the citizens of the municipality’. This also applies to names of firms, public signposts and billboards. In practice, however, as is pointed out by Gruevska-Madjoska (2011: 547), ‘the reality is completely different: in municipalities where there is a majority of Albanians the signposts, names of firms, announcements etc. are written in Albanian language and script, without a Macedonian translation’. In this context, the Law on Territorial Organization passed in 2004 by the Macedonian Parliament (OGRM 55/2004) should be mentioned. In the Albanian version of this law, published in OGRM, the toponyms were actually renamed. The views of Macedonian linguists were presented at a public debate and published in The Standardization of Geographic Names in the Republic of Macedonia (Velkovska, 2004). In the conclusions to the collection, it is emphasised that geographical names should not be translated, but should be written in Latin script and phonetically adapted where necessary; it was demanded that the Albanian text of this law be withdrawn (Velkovska, 2004: 112). With these regulations, the institution of a second official language beside Macedonian is becoming a reality, which leads to the establishment of a policy of bilingualism at state level in Macedonia. This process results in diminishing to a certain extent the territory of the use of the Macedonian language and its role as a cohesive factor in Macedonian society, given the current issues in laws that regulate language policy in Macedonia. It is an example of the direct influence of political motives on the definition of institutional language status. Regarding the situation in the educational system in the country, it should be mentioned here that article 7 of the Constitution of 1991 stated that ‘in the local government units where majority consists of members of nationalities, apart from Macedonian, the language and script of the nationalities shall be in official usage, determined by law’ (OGRM 52/1991). The regulations concerning the education of minorities in Macedonia did not result in any significant change within the constitutional amendments in 2001: the only change in article 48 of the Constitution was terminological, in the sense that ‘members of nonmajority communities’ came to be used instead of the term ‘nationalities’, which had been used in the Constitution until 2001. Educational aspects are regulated by means of the Law of Primary Education (article 3) (OGRM 103/2008) and the Law of Secondary Education, passed in 2004 (OGRM 67/2004). Also, the field of minority education is enclosed in the Law for Textbooks in Primary and Secondary Education (OGRM 98/2008). In general, the members of non-majority communities are entitled to receiving elementary and secondary education in their own language, while Macedonian is learnt as a separate subject.

Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia

325

A more significant change was made within university education. During the time when Macedonia was part of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (from 1945 to 1991), the domain of minority education was regulated by the Constitution from 1974 (OGRM 7/1974). In article 179, it was regulated that the education of members of different nationalities in schools be conducted in their own language. Thus, Albanian would be used for teaching in kindergarten, in primary and secondary schools, as well as at the teacher training departments at the Pedagogical Faculty in Skopje (founded in 1947), alongside Turkish. Apart from that, at the Philological Faculty in Skopje, a Department of Albanian Language and Literature was founded in 1971 and a Department of Turkish Language and Literature in 1976, while a group for the study of Serbian language and literature had been set up in 1946 at the Department for Macedonian and South Slavic languages. Since independence, article 48 of the Constitution from 1991 states that ‘members of nationalities have the right to being taught in their own language in elementary and secondary schools as defined by law’. In the field of university education, after 2001 the Macedonian state was put under the obligation to finance public university education for non-majority communities who make up 20% of its population. Thus, in 2004, the State University of Tetovo was officially founded, where the primary language of teaching is Albanian (OGRM 8/2004). Apart from that, another university was founded in Tetovo in 2001, called the University of South-Eastern Europe, where the languages taught are Albanian, English and Macedonian. In his work on the normative framework for minority language rights in Macedonia, Bliznakovski (2011) proposes a theoretical framework to present Macedonian language policy. According to Bliznakovski (2011), the legal framework may be viewed as a three-layered structure of holders of linguistic rights, according to the scope of assigned rights, and it is to be presented as follows: (a) At the first level, there is Macedonian, used by the Macedonian language community as a whole. It is the official language used within the territory of Republic of Macedonia at all levels; it is the language of the government and the only one to be used as an official language in international relations; it is the only language mentioned in the Constitution. (b) At the second level, there is the language used by at least 20 per cent of the population. In practice, this is Albanian, which is used as an official language in state bodies of government and in official communication; personal documents may be issued in this language and it may be used in the Macedonian Parliament. (c) At the third level, any language in use by at least 20 per cent of the population may be used in local government bodies (or any language which is democratically specified); in practice, this may

326

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

apply to Albanian, Turkish, Serbian and Roma. These languages are official in the local government bodies where the minimal condition of 20 per cent speakers is fulfilled; official communication may be conducted in these languages, in addition to Macedonian. (d) Linguistic rights are included in the legal framework in a broader sense. They are referred to as basic human rights of the national and language minorities. At this fourth level the rights of kindergarten care and of primary and secondary education are included where the minimal 20 per cent condition does not apply. (Bliznakovski, 2011: 149) In the context of minority rights and the mechanisms of broadening the language preferences by nation states in general, May (2007: 266) refers to the principle of giving members of a minority group the opportunity to use their first language if they choose to do so in cases where there is a sufficient number of speakers of other languages (identified as a principle drawn from international law). In accordance with this, the language policy in Macedonia can be represented as a policy that covers the position of minorities, too, and as being linguistically pluralistic because the principle of territorialism is being applied. Spolsky (2009: 165), in an analysis of the example of former Yugoslavia vis-à-vis territorial solutions in managing languages in the new independent countries, came to the conclusion that territorialism is employed in order to simplify a language policy and that it is more likely to be successfully implemented in cases where distinct language regions are identified. In addition, he emphasises that territorialism is further encouraged by historical earlier divisions that retain their ideological appeal. But it is important to avoid a linguicentric view: the territorial divisions are political, ethnic, or religious (or a combination); the linguistic reflex follows rather than causes the divisions. (Spolsky, 2009: 165) If we draw a parallel with the status of the languages used in Macedonia today, we may conclude that the political and ethnic divisions may be identified as the main causes for the linguistic division in the country today.

Challenges for the Macedonian Language Policy Studying the future course of the language policy in Macedonia and the management of minority language issues, Stefanovski (2002: 225) strongly suggests that the unity of the Macedonian state is to be preserved. He makes two recommendations relating to the current language policy in Macedonia: firstly, that one common language is to be used in interethnic

Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia

327

communication in the entire state, and secondly, that in the process of language planning the needs and expectations of the minority which by numbers exceed all other minorities in the state should be taken into consideration. While analysing the relation to some regulations of the European Union, it should be mentioned that Macedonia signed and ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which is an important step in the process of the implementation of EU standards in this domain. As for the status of Macedonian minorities living in EU member states, I want to focus on Bulgaria and Greece, where the Macedonian minority does not enjoy the rights of minorities in the EU. These two member states have not yet signed or ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In Bulgaria, Macedonians are not recognised as a minority, nor is their language recognised as a minority language. In Greece, because of the naming dispute (for an extensive study on this dispute between Greece and Macedonia, see Shkaric et al., 2009) and the negative stand towards the existence of the Macedonian state by the Greek government, the Macedonian minority is called ‘Slavomacedonian’ or ‘Bulgarian’, according to the Euromosaic study which was prepared by the European Commission in 1992. In a comparative summary of the Euromosaic (2009) report, a difficulty is noted with regard to the identification of different languages as dialects, and in this context Macedonian is mentioned as a language which could be considered to be Bulgarian, a Greek dialect or Slavo-Macedonian. Among the EU member states, Romania has recognised Macedonians as a minority, and the Macedonian language is protected as a territorial language in agreement with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. With regard to the possibilities of integration into the EU, it should be emphasised that this process would have a positive impact on the status of Macedonian, given that apart from being recognised as a minority language in Greece and Bulgaria as EU member states, Macedonian would be perceived as one of the official languages of the EU, according to EU standards. This process should constitute an improvement in the recognition of the Macedonian language within Europe. Macedonia as an EU candidate is obliged to take further steps in advancing this process. Linguists in Macedonia are therefore motivated to work out strategies for the promotion of Macedonian in Europe, together with other regional languages.

Some Conclusions The steps that have been taken in the field of status planning of the Macedonian language may be considered proactive in the period of introducing Macedonian as an official language in the (formerly Socialist)

328

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Republic of Macedonia in 1944, as well as in view of the approval of the Macedonian alphabet and orthography in 1945. The grammar of the Macedonian literary language by Blaže Koneski (1976), first published in 1952 (part I) and subsequently in 1953 (part II), presents an important reference for the description of Macedonian as such and of the language’s norm. In the period until 1991, that is, until Macedonian independence, the focus was on the relation of Macedonian to Serbo-Croatian as an official language and as the most widely used language in former Yugoslavia. The status and influence of Serbo-Croatian on Macedonian are subjects which were thoroughly studied by Macedonian and foreign Slavists such as Lunt (1984) and Friedman (1985), and the results of language contact on a lexical level are still considered to be current issues. The status of Macedonian changed after 1991, with the disintegration of the Yugoslav federation. According to the Constitution, Macedonian (and its Cyrillic script) is the official language within the territory of the Republic of Macedonia, and the domains of usage are regulated by a law for the use of the Macedonian language which was passed in 1998. In 2001, with the amendments to the Constitution, there was a change in the regulation of the official status of the language, and a second official language (alongside Macedonian) was implemented based on the number of speakers. Thus, a language which is spoken by at least 20% of the population is also considered an official language. The domains in which that language is to be used are regulated by the Law for the Usage of a Language spoken by at least 20% of the population of the Republic of Macedonia in local government bodies. In practice, there are some anomalies, which are visible in the language use on signs and signposts, in public places and in schools. The challenge of language planning in Macedonia has been and still is how to maintain the balance between the unity of the state and the need for a national language that functions as a common language used at every state level on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the tendency to abandon the concept of state unity which is noticeable in the treatment and implementation of the Law for the Usage of a Language spoken by at least 20% of the population in Macedonia.

Note (1)

Zum einen spielten neben dem Serbocroatischen die anderen Standardsprachen auf Föderationsebene nur eine sehr untergeordnete Rolle (in den Organen der zentralen Gewalten wurden sie kaum verwendet) (Marti, 1998: 364).

References Balalovska, K. (2006) Macedonia 2006: Towards stability? The Ethnobarometer Working Paper Series 11. Balalovska, K., Silj, A. and Zucconi, M. (2002) Minority politics in Southeast Europe: Crisis in Macedonia. The Ethnobarometer Working Paper Series 6.

Prescription and Language Management in Macedonia

329

Bliznakovski, J. (2011) Normative framework for minority linguistic rights in Macedonia: As established with the Ohrid Framework Agreement. Evrodijalog 14, 133−152. Bulletin of the Council for Macedonian Language [Bilten na Sovetot za makedonski jazik, 2000– 2005]. Skopje: Ministry of Culture. Euromosaic (2009) Presence of Regional and Minority Language Groups in the European Union’s new Member States – Extension to Bulgaria and Romania. Final Report. Comparative Study See http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/language-policy/documents/ summary-euromosaic-iv_en.pdf. Framework Agreement. See http://www.ucd.ie/ibis/filestore/Ohrid%20Framework%20 Agreement.pdf (accessed 13 February 2015). Friedman, V. (1985) The sociolinguistics of literary Macedonian. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 52, 31–57. Gruevska-Madjoska, S. [=Груевска-Маџоска, С.] (2011) Статусот на македонскиот јазик во Република Македонија. [The status of Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia]. Spektar 58, 544–549. Kloss, H. (1967) Abstand languages and Ausbau languages. Anthropological Linguistics 9 (7): 29–41. Koneski, B. [=Конески, Б.] (1976) Граматика на македонскиот литературен јазик [Grammar of The Macedonian Literary Language] (2nd edn). Vols 1 and 2. Skopje: Kultura. Lunt, H. (1984) Some sociolinguistic aspects of Macedonian and Bulgarian. Language and Literary Theory – Papers in Slavic Philology 5, 83−132. Marti, R. (1998) Sprachenpolitik im slavischsprachigen Raum. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 57 (2), 353−369. May, S. (2007) Language policy and minority rights. In T. Ricento (ed.) Language Policy. Theory and Method (pp. 255−272). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. and Leap, W.L. (2009) Introducing Sociolingustics (2nd edn). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Minova-Gjurkova, L. [=Минова-Ѓуркова Л.] (ed.) (1998) Македонски јазик. [Macedonian Language]. Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski – Instytut Filologii Polskiej. OGRM: Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia [Služben vesnik na Republika Makedonija]. See www.slvesnik.com.mk (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 7/1974. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/0AF2E0456C964935B7705FB 5BF6F31F9.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 52/1991. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/19D704B29EC040A1968D79 96AA0F1A56.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 5/1998. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/0680A24342504783A419571B 074C03D7.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 91/2001. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/4565B8A8CCA245AC99E52 A0EE60B3FCD.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 42/2002. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/DADD74CF60D3A94AAB57 B77E17AF39C7.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 8/2004. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/9231FB9589008144895AD40 48248C24B.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 55/2004. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/9D37AEDC6F890F40A8795 ED71D0C72A9.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 67/2004. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/E2B653116A9DA5439B5A8 B715F258DE0.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 98/2008. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/BE79420C2BA6AF4DA6B3A 9F3E3DDC87F.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 101/2008. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/DE07B4F6DDFBE948A0DF E2CFF240F02C.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015).

330

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

OGRM 103/2008. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/CC8C2B64EFCA844282 EC7B48E165DF29.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). OGRM 100/2011. See http://www.slvesnik.com.mk/Issues/47D56301AAB3324281A08 5DAAC0AEF98.pdf (accessed 16 February 2015). Schmidt, R. (2007) Political theory and language policy. In T. Ricento (ed.) Language Policy. Theory and Method (pp. 95−110). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Shkaric S., Apasiev, D. and Patchev, V. (eds) (2009) The Name Issue: Greece and Macedonia. Skopje: Matica makedonska. See https://www.academia.edu/2592095/THE_ NAME_ISSUE_-_Greece_and_Macedonia (accessed 16 February 2015). Spolsky, B. (2009) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2012) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stefanovski, Lj. [=Стефановски, Љ.] (2002) Јазичната политика во Република Македонија [Language policy in the Republic of Macedonia]. In L. MinovaGjurkova (ed.) Makedonski sociolingvistički i filološki temi [Macedonian Sociolinguistic and Philological Themes] (pp. 219–228). Skopje: Sovet za makedonski jаzik. Texts of the Roumanian ‘Peace’ (1918) US Department of State, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 5−28. Velkovska, S. (ed.) (2004) Стандардизацијата на географските имиња во Република Македонија [The Standardization of Geographic Names in the Republic of Macedonia]. Jazikot naš denešen, 11. Skopje: Institute of Macedonian Language ‘Krste Misirkov’. Wright, S. (2004) Language Policy and Language Planning. From Nationalism to Globalisation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

21 The Standardisation Process of Frisian: A Word List as a Result Pieter Duijff

Introduction In 2013, the Provinsjale Steaten fan Fryslân ‘Provincial Council of Friesland’ took the decision to have a standard word list of Frisian developed by the Fryske Akademy ‘Frisian Academy’, the academic centre which focuses on the Frisian language and culture. The existence of the Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal ‘Word list of the Dutch Language’ (2005), a standardised spelling list of Dutch which is popularly referred to as the Groene Boekje ‘Green Booklet’, served both as an inspiration and as an example to the Council when arriving at its decision. Though several Frisian dictionaries have been published over the course of the past century, the desk dictionaries that are in common use often, though not always, provide important dialect variants alongside their main entries. This lack of clarity concerning preferred vocabulary has been a cause of confusion, particularly for those developing educational materials and for learners of Frisian. This chapter will outline the problems involved when deciding on preferred word forms in the standard word list for Frisian which has been available online since the beginning of 2015 (Dykstra et al., 2015). In order to provide an adequate idea of the kind of choices that had to be made during the compilation process, I shall first briefly sketch the linguistic history of Frisian. In addition, I shall describe the position of Frisian within society, today and in the past, as well as the linguistic variation that characterises the language.

The Linguistic History of Frisian Together with German, English and Dutch, Frisian is part of the West Germanic language group and is spoken in the greater part of the Dutch province of Friesland (Gorter, 2001; Hoekstra, 2001; Vries, 2001). In contrast to these other languages, however, Frisian has not enjoyed a rich 331

332

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

and unbroken literary tradition. In the 13th century, Frisian was spoken and written within a larger geographical area than is the case today, but the language was gradually pushed back from the north of Germany to what is now the province of Friesland. Because the province lost its administrative autonomy during the 16th century, Frisian fell into disuse as a written language roughly by the middle of that century (Vries, 1993, 1997, 2001). The language lived on only as a spoken medium, while Dutch came to be the written language in the province in the fields of the law, commerce, administration, the Protestant church (Feitsma, 1989), culture and personal correspondence. There is, therefore, no continuous heritage of written Frisian. Down to the mid-16th century, the written language is referred to as Old Frisian, and surviving manuscripts are mainly legal in content. Only a few brief fragments can be considered to be instances of literary writing according to definitions that we employ today. As Friesland’s administrative independence disappeared, so too did the Frisian legal system, and this went hand in hand with the disappearance of Frisian legal terminology. When an extremely modest revival of written Frisian occurred at the beginning of the 17th century, writers were unable to fall back on a continuous, written linguistic heritage or else had great difficulty in doing so. Moreover, what these authors produced was for entertainment and not for professional use (Breuker, 2006). Though writing in Frisian ended during the 16th century, after that there was a modest literary revival in the person of the 17th-century highly influential poet Gysbert Japicx (1603−1666), who chiefly wrote in Frisian. At the time, longer pieces of his prose in the language were mainly translations (Breuker, 1989). The initiative taken by Gysbert Japicx to write in Frisian was imitated only sporadically over the next 150 years, so that until about the third decade of the 19th century, Frisian remained to all intents and purposes a spoken language. After that time, there was a growing sense that the spoken vernacular did indeed lend itself to written use, a realisation that may be contributed in large part to the influence of romanticism. The number of written texts increased steadily, though remaining rather limited in extent, and very little material was produced in Frisian for professional purposes (Breuker, 2006; Brouwer, 2001; Jensma, 1998; Steenmeijer-Wielenga, 2006). Around the same time, however, the first Frisian grammars were produced. The first grammar of Frisian was written by Epko Epkema in his dictionary published for the purpose of providing an understanding of the work of Gysbert Japicx. Epkema started his book in Dutch with the words: Bij het schrijven dezer Inleiding kan noch mag ons voornemen zijn, een volledig zamenstel van Spraak-kunst der Land-friesche taal te geven […] ‘In writing this introduction it hasn’t been our intention to write a complete account of the grammar of the Frisian language’ (Epkema, 1824: III, my translation). His reason for not providing

The Standardisation Process of Frisian: A Word List as a Result

333

a comprehensive grammar of the language is that Frisian and Dutch are closely related. Later grammars describe the Frisian language in more detail; for an overview of these earliest grammars of Frisian, see Feitsma (1999). In the course of the 20th century, the amount of written material in Frisian grew considerably, by then including non-literary subjects as well, even if the material covered was far more limited than that which was in Dutch in the area. This situation is reflected in the dictionary of Frisian, the Wurdboek fan de Fryske Taal/Woordenboek der Friese Taal ‘Dictionary of the Frisian Language’, which was published between 1984 and 2011 and serves as a good illustration of the lack of non-literary written sources. The dictionary is an academic, descriptive publication covering vocabulary in use during the period 1800−1976. Many oral recordings were also included, alongside words from many written sources. Many of these spoken recordings relate to technical terms used in old trades and crafts. One of the written sources that was used for the dictionary is the first complete translation of the bible into Frisian (Bibel, 1943). In 1943, it was really far too late to adopt Frisian as the language of the Church, since generations of Frisians had grown up with Dutch as the language of the religious domain. So, in the dictionary the bible is cited very often, despite the fact that Frisians mainly draw on Dutch bible translations in daily life.

The Position of Frisian in Formal Domains During the second half of the 19th century, the position held by Frisian in society was strengthened as a result of what came to be known as the Frisian Movement. There was as yet no place at all for a Frisian school curriculum, though a debate did take place on the desirability of teaching the Frisian language. It was only in 1937 that the Dutch national government allowed Frisian to be taught as a subject in schools. Further opportunities to increase the use of Frisian in education grew a few decades later, and, indeed, an increasing amount of teaching material was produced for education in Frisian (see further Zondag, 2011). Unlike before the Second World War, it is quite common today for Frisian to be written and spoken within local and provincial administration. The language has even acquired legal status within the judiciary. Everyone has the right to use the Frisian language should they wish to do so, although this seldom happens in practice because Frisians all speak Dutch without any problem. Particularly in the courts, Frisians very often do not feel free to use Frisian. The media have been of major significance with regard to the emancipation of Frisian from Dutch, particularly the Frisian regional radio and television broadcasting organisation.1 It has become quite normal for people to catch up with the daily news in Frisian, including the weather

334

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

report, legal and government affairs, sports and cultural events and more besides. Everything can be followed in Frisian by all Frisian-speaking Frisians and by all the province’s other inhabitants as well.2 Around 55% of the province’s inhabitants consider Frisian to be their mother tongue. A far larger percentage has a considerable passive understanding of the language, though reading in Frisian presents problems for a great many within that segment. Quite a few Frisian speakers are unable to read their own written language without effort. Writing the mother tongue gives rise to even greater difficulties. Estimates concerning the command of writing skills fluctuate around 10% of the Frisian population (De Fryske Taalatlas, 2011; Gorter, 1993; Gorter et al., 1984, 1988; Gorter & Jonkman, 1995). Fishman (1991: 395) distinguishes eight different stages with regard to the social position enjoyed by local languages, and this model is of great use when trying to describe the current situation with respect to Frisian. The first stage is when the language is spoken only by a few isolated, older people and is close to extinction, while the final stage is when the language is used at the highest levels of administration, at universities and in the national media. Clearly, Frisian does not function as a language at this level. However, the language is used at the province’s administrative level, at colleges of higher education (Friesland does not have a university of its own) and in the media, but the written language is only in marginal use in these areas because Dutch remains the dominant language. Frisian, moreover, scores poorly at Fishman’s fifth level, i.e. as being in use in school and within the community, despite statutory obligations: the language plays only a limited role in primary, secondary and higher education.

Moving Towards a Standard Frisian Language It is rather difficult to identify a Frisian standard variety. Traditionally, Frisian is divided into four principal dialects, i.e. Klaaifrysk ‘Clay Frisian’, spoken in the north-western region of the province; the dialect used in the eastern region, known as Wâldfrysk ‘Woodland Frisian’; Noardhoeksk ‘North Quarter Frisian’, spoken in the small north-eastern region; and Súdwesthoeksk ‘South-West Quarter Frisian’, the dialect belonging to south-western Friesland (see the map in Figure 21.1). These four dialects are characterised by a large amount of variation, but there is nevertheless considerable mutual intelligibility between speakers of different dialects. Variation is chiefly found at the phonological level; there are few lexical and hardly any syntactical differences between them (Duijff, 2002; Hof, 1933; Van der Veen, 2001). The topic of the relationship between dialect selection and the standardisation process is further explored in Joseph (1987: 58–87).

The Standardisation Process of Frisian: A Word List as a Result

335

Figure 21.1 Map of the Frisian dialect areas

The Frisian Renaissance poet Gysbert Japicx, already mentioned in the section ‘The Linguistic History of Frisian’, had a lasting impact on the development of Frisian as a written language. As a Frisian man of letters, it was necessary for Gysbert Japicx to develop a form of spelling (Van der Kuip, 2003: 14−29). Due to the large amount of linguistic difference between the written Old Frisian of the late Middle Ages and the spoken Frisian of his own time, it was impossible for him to adopt the Old Frisian spelling system. He therefore developed his own spelling system, and published about it in his article ‘Nauw-keurigen Needer-lander’ (Brouwer et al., 1966: 342). There, he recorded, for instance, that he had decided to represent [ɔ:] by means of an added circumflex on the letter (), the sound of which, he said, resembled the cry of the hooded crow. This early pioneer of modern written Frisian also had to determine the correct forms of words. By the 17th century, Frisian had already borrowed a considerable number of Dutch words because of the growing economic and political dominance of Holland. For example, Old Frisian has the word seke for English ‘matter’ or ‘case’, a rather frequent word in the Frisian charters (Versloot, 2008: 33−35, 107−109). However, already in the 17th century, the Dutch form was used, with the stem vowel /a:/. In the 17th-century collection of almost 1200 proverbs and expressions, the so-called Burmania-proverbs, we thus find the word with the Dutch stem vowel /a:/ or /æ/, as in Faeye sæcken gæ dy oan ‘doomed things concern you’ (Van der Kuip, 2003: 276, 277; emphasis added), and saak has been the only

336

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

variant in Frisian since 1800 (see Wurdboek fan de Fryske Taal/Woordenboek der Friese Taal, 1984−2011, Vol. 18, s.v. ‘saak’). In material contained in a second edition of Gysbert Japicx’s work, published in 1681, it can be seen that Japicx had replaced non-Frisian words with native Frisian ones. One example of this is his replacement of the Dutch word knecht ‘servant’ in the first edition from 1668, by the Frisian variant feynt (Feitsma, 1992: 36). Especially during the first half of the 19th century, writers started developing authentic Frisian vocabulary, just as Gysbert Japicx had done before. Some of these writers looked to Old Frisian for their inspiration, while others took Gysbert Japicx’s language as their model whereas yet others based their spelling on 19th-century spoken Frisian. Poortinga (1960) describes the differences between these three adopted models in detail. The last two groups aimed to write in the purest form of Frisian, suppressing Dutch influence as much as possible as they went along. The group which used ‘modern’ Frisian had the greatest amount of influence on the way written Frisian developed. By slow degrees, a general standard was born concerning what was and what was not considered acceptable Frisian. This standardisation process moved forward in 1879 thanks to the publication of the first Frisian spelling rules in a work called De Fryske Boekstavering ‘Frisian spelling’ (1879). The final volume of the first complete Frisian dictionary, the Friesch Woordenboek, appeared in 1911 (Dijkstra, 1900, 1903, 1911). This dictionary played a major role in the further standardisation of Frisian in the 20th century (Duijff, 2008, 2010). The role played by these spelling rules and by this important Frisian dictionary may be illustrated with two examples. In broad terms, the vowel /u/ as realised before a nasal in the eastern section of the Frisianspeaking region would be pronounced [o] in the same position in the western section of the region. An example of this is the dialect pair tûme – tomme ‘thumb’. Both variants were permitted according to the spelling conventions published in 1879 – or, to put it differently, this dialect variation was mentioned in the description of the spelling rules. The dictionary indicates this type of variation by means of providing a main and a subentry, with the western consistently given as the main entry. The dialectal variation /ɛ:/ – /ɪ.ɘ/ before gutturals, however, is handled differently. The northern and eastern variant /ɛ:/ was systematically ignored in the 1879 spelling convention, and this is why faithful adherents of the dictionary from the linguistic region where /ɛ:/ is found preferred pleagje ‘to tease’ to plêgje. In both cases, the Klaaifrysk variants were listed first in the dictionary, while sometimes they were the only ones provided. The same choice is made almost invariably in the prescriptive desk dictionaries that are based on the first dictionary published at the beginning of the 20th century. Thus, in many cases – though often quite inconsistently so – it was decided to adopt the Klaaifryske variant as the preferred spelling (cf. Breuker, 2001: 714–716). An explanation

The Standardisation Process of Frisian: A Word List as a Result

337

for the choice of one dialect over the other three main dialects here is that 19th-century authors came from the Klaaifryske region. Because no standard spelling existed at the time, it was natural that these writers based their spelling on how they themselves spoke. Increasingly, writers from other regions adopted the same practice, quite possibly under the influence of the dictionaries, and this gradually led to the development of a supraregional standard Frisian language. However, it was, as is more or less the case in most standards, a standard language with a fairly limited tolerance of variation when compared in particular with the Frisian dialects spoken in the extreme north and south-west. The following examples may illustrate this. In Frisian, the standard form of the verb brûke ‘to use’ is pronounced with [u] as the stem vowel, while in the south-west [ʉ] is used (bruke). The latter variant, however, appears neither in dictionaries nor in any teaching material, while it is almost never encountered in written material either. In the north-east, buotter ‘butter’ displays the typical Frisian break to [wo] from the pure monophthong /u/; however, in dictionaries and written material, the form bûter usually appears, reflecting a monophthongal pronunciation. Thus, schoolchildren in the Noardhoekske region are confronted solely with the form bûter in writing despite the difference in pronunciation in their own dialect. Although all this in effect points to the existence of a supraregional standard for Frisian, such a standard still has to become fully crystallised. Haugen (1966: 107–110) identifies four characteristics of a standard language: (1) selection of norm, (2) codification of norm, (3) elaboration of function and (4) acceptance by the community. If we follow this account, it may be said that the Frisian standard does not yet have a completely selected norm. Though Milroy and Milroy ([1985] 2012) adopt a different standardisation model from that of Haugen, their definition of a standard language, according to Milroy and Milroy ([1985] 2012: 22), referring to Leith (1983: 32), as a variety that shows ‘minimal variation of form and maximal variation of function’ does not apply to Frisian either yet. A question, regularly posed within the educational sector in particular, is what exactly constitutes correct usage today. Partly in light of this, the Provincial Council of Friesland commissioned the Fryske Akademy to compile a standard list of words for Frisian, which simultaneously includes correct spellings for the words included. To that end, it has become clear that in many cases this standard is already present in society and has become generally accepted. The compilers of the list were therefore able to build on an existing tradition; nevertheless, choices still had to be made. To facilitate a focus on standard forms, no words were included in the list for subordinate forms as was commonly done in earlier dictionaries. To be more specific, this means that a regional variant such as tûme ‘thumb’ does not appear in the list of words, and accordingly receives the same

338

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

treatment as applied more than a century ago in the Friesch Woordenboek (Dijkstra, 1900, 1903, 1911) for a form such as plêgje ‘to tease’. Searching for either of these words in the new list of words therefore will produce no results. When selecting dialect variants, distinct criteria may be employed in standardising Frisian, intentionally so or otherwise. My colleagues and I employed these criteria when compiling the standard list of words. I shall proceed to give a brief overview of these criteria, providing some examples for the purpose of clarification. Let us deal first with the central Frisian dialects. The Frisian peripheral dialects are scarcely mentioned in the dictionaries, so that choices only need to be made between possible variants that occur among the central Wâldfryske and Klaaifryske regions. The most important selection criterion is the position of the variants in the dictionaries: thus, the main term is usually the preferred form. Accordingly, the Klaaifryske variant tomme ‘thumb’ was selected and not the variant tûme. The second criterion adopted is that of common usage. A highly frequent form may consequently be preferred to a less common variant. For example, the pronoun guon ‘some’ has various regional differences, but since the form appears across practically the entire linguistic region, it was selected as the form for the list. Another criterion relates to the fact that in the case of minority languages such as Frisian an important consideration when selecting a particular dialect is the notion of distancing, which is a process by which the minority language is set apart from another variety, generally the dominant language (Breuker, 2001; Kotzé, 2010; Van der Wal, 2010). For Frisian, this is of course Dutch. A good example of the selection criterion that is relevant to this process is the word hiel /hi.əl/ ‘whole’. The far more frequently used and, in historical terms, entirely correct and in fact older form heel /he:l/ resembles Dutch too closely to be included in the list as a standard form. For all that, such a selection criterion is entirely in line with practice found in existing dictionaries. Fourthly, the requirement of uniformity plays an important role as a selection criterion, which may be explained with the help of the word sied [si.ət] ‘seed’. In a number of cases, the word may lose its final , so that the forms sied and sie both appear as root words. Given that the final may be required in the formation of compounds and derivatives, it has been decided to keep the root in the list of words as sied – in other words, to keep the final consonant in the spelling of the word. Finally, by way of a fifth criterion, tradition also has an important role to play because a standard variety of Frisian is already in existence, even though still variable in nature. Words that have already been accepted by the Frisian community as standard terms will, of course, remain so, and the existing dictionaries serve as important indicators in this respect. The word hiel mentioned above is a classic example of this. Another example is

The Standardisation Process of Frisian: A Word List as a Result

339

the word korrekt, a loanword in Frisian which had been adopted during the 19th century but which also occurs today in a different spelling and with a different meaning: krekt[krɛkt] ‘accurate, precise, just, exactly, precisely’. In line with the criterion ‘tradition’, both forms of the word are included in the list, even though by way of a general principle it was agreed that word forms exhibiting reduced pronunciations are not to be included.

Conclusions I would like to conclude this chapter with a question. Is the step currently being taken towards standardising Frisian one that requires seven-league boots? The answer to this question is definitely ‘no’. Despite its status as a minority language, a relatively robust standard already exists for Frisian. In actual fact, we had a great deal less work on our hands than the editors of the first complete Frisian dictionary who started from scratch and had a great many choices to make. We encountered problems only in instances where these earlier editors had declined to make choices, whatever their reasons may have been, or in instances where they had perhaps been unaware of the choices available to them. Gysbert Japicx, too, had a far more taxing time of it in the 17th century when attempting to select what were to be appropriate and correct Frisian linguistic forms. He did this all by himself, and for private purposes. We hope we carried out our selection process on more scholarly principles and for a much wider public as well.

Notes (1) (2)

Cf. www.omropfryslan.nl (accessed 24 March 2015). Cf. www.itnijs.nl (accessed 24 March 2015).

References Bibel, dat is de Hiele Hillige Skrift, Bifetsjende al de Kanonike Boeken fen it Alde en Nije Testamint (1943) Amsterdam: Nederlandsch Bijbelgenootschap. Breuker, P. (2001) The development of Standard West Frisian. In H.H. Munske (ed.) Handbuch des Friesischen/Handbook of Frisian Studies (pp. 711–721). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Breuker, Ph.H. (1989) It Wurk fan Gysbert Japix. I. Tekst yn Facsimile. II. Oerlevering en Untstean. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Breuker, Ph.H. (2006) Literatuur als liefhebberij. Van 1540 tot 1822. In T. Oppewal, B. Gezelle Meerburg, J. Krol and T. Steenmeijer-Wielenga (eds) Zolang de Wind van de Wolken Waait. Geschiedenis van de Friese Literatuur (pp. 31–53). Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Brouwer, E.J. (2001) West Frisian literature in the 19th century. In H.H. Munske (ed.) Handbuch des Friesischen/Handbook of Frisian Studies (pp. 183−203). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Brouwer, J.H., Haantjes, J. and Sipma, P. (eds) (1966) Gysbert Japicx Wurken. Boalsert: A.J. Osinga N.V.

340

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

De Fryske Boekstavering, in Hantlieding foar Hwa yn ’t Frysk Skriuwe Wolle (1879) Hearrenfean: N.A. Hingst. De Fryske Taalatlas (2011) Ljouwert: Provinsje Fryslân/Provincie Fryslân. See http:// www.fryslan.frl/taalatlas (accessed 21 March 2015). Dijkstra, W. (ed. with the co-operation of others) (1900) Friesch Woordenboek (Lexicon Frisicum). Eerste Deel A-H. Leeuwarden: Meijer & Schaafsma. Dijkstra, W. (ed. with the co-operation of S.K. Feitsma and the Commissie van Toezicht) (1903) Friesch Woordenboek (Lexicon Frisicum). Tweede Deel I−P. Leeuwarden: Meijer & Schaafsma. Dijkstra, W. (ed. with the co-operation of T.E. Halbertsma, J.J. Hornstra Gz. and the Commissie van Toezicht) (1911) Friesch Woordenboek (Lexicon Frisicum). Derde Deel R−W en Nalezing [read: Q−Z en Nalezing]. Leeuwarden: Meijer & Schaafsma. Duijff, P. (2002) Fries en Stadfries. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. See http://www.dbnl.org/ arch/duij017frie01_01/pag/duij017frie01_01.pdf (accessed 21 March 2015). Duijff, P. (2008) Towards Standard Frisian in the Friesch Woordenboek. In M. Mooijaart and M. van der Wal (eds) Yesterday’s Words: Contemporary, Current and Future Lexicography (pp. 53–66). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Duijff, P. (2010) The language norm in a century of Frisian dictionaries. In A. Dykstra and T. Schoonheim (eds) Proceedings of the XIV Euralex International Congress (pp. 1471−1484). Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy/Afûk. Dykstra, A., Duijff, P., Kuip, F. van der and Sijens, H. (2015) Taalweb Frysk. See http:// www.taalweb.frl (accessed 23 March 2015). Epkema, E. (1824) Woordenboek op de Gedichten en Verdere Geschriften van Gijsbert Japicx, als een Vervolg op de II Vorige Deelen van dat werk. Leeuwarden: Johannes Proost. Feitsma, T. (1989) Reformaasje en folkstaal. In A.M.J. Riemersma, T. Riemersma and W. Visser (eds) Frysk en Vrije Universiteit (1949−1989) (pp. 41–72). Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij. Feitsma, T. (1992) Gysbert Japicx os taalbouwer. Tydskrift foar Fryske Taalkunde 7 (2), 29–53. Feitsma, T. (1999) Grammatika fan it Nijfrysk. In A. Dykstra and R.H. Bremmer Jr (eds) In Skiednis fan ’e Fryske Taalkunde (pp. 175−190). Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gorter, D. (1993) Taal fan Klerken en Klanten. Undersyk nei it Frysk en it Nederlânsk yn it Ferkear tusken Siktary-amtners en Ynwenners fan de Gemeente Hearrenfean. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Gorter, D. (2001) Extent and position of West Frisian. In H.H. Munske (ed.) Handbuch des Friesischen/Handbook of Frisian Studies (pp. 73–83). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Gorter, D. and Jonkman, R.J. (1995) Taal yn Fryslân op ’e nij Besjoen. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Gorter, D., Jelsma, G., Plank, P. van der and Vos, K. de (1984) Taal yn Fryslân. Undersyk nei Taalgedrach en Taalhâlding yn Fryslân. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Gorter, D., Jelsma, G., Plank, P. van der and Vos, K. de (1988) Language in Friesland. (English Summary of ‘Taal yn Fryslân’, a Survey of Language Use and Language Attitudes in Friesland, The Netherlands). Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Haugen, E. (1966) Dialect, language, nation. In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (pp. 97−111). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hoekstra, J.F. (2001) An outline history of West Frisian. In H.H. Munske (ed.) Handbuch des Friesischen/Handbook of Frisian Studies (pp. 722–734). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Hof, J.J. (1933) Friesche Dialectgeographie. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Jensma, G. (1998) Het Rode Tasje van Salverda. Burgerlijk Bewustzijn en Friese Identiteit in de Negentiende Eeuw. Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy.

The Standardisation Process of Frisian: A Word List as a Result

341

Joseph, J.E. (1987) Eloquence and Power. The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. London: Frances Pinter. Kotzé, E.F. (2010) Destandaardisasie en herstandaardisasie. Gelyklopende prosesse in die nuwe Suid-Afrika? In M. van der Wal and E. Francken (eds) Standaardtalen in Beweging (pp. 153−169). Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Nodus Publikationen. Leith, D. (1983) A Social History of English. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. ([1985] 2012) Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation (4th edn). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Poortinga, Y. (1960) De opbou fan de Fryske literatuertael oan it bigjin fan de 19de ieu. In K. Dykstra, K. Heeroma, W. Kok and H.T.J. Miedema (eds) Fryske stúdzjes. Oanbean oan Prof. dr. J.H. Brouwer op syn Sechstichste Jierdei 23 Augustus 1960 (pp. 313−326). Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp. N.V. Steenmeijer-Wielenga, T. (2006) Meer literatuur voor meer mensen. Van 1822 tot 1915. In T. Oppewal, B. Gezelle Meerburg, J. Krol and T. Steenmeijer-Wielenga (eds) Zolang de Wind van de Wolken Waait. Geschiedenis van de Friese Literatuur (pp. 55–92). Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. Van der Kuip, F.J. (2003) De Burmania-sprekwurden. Santjinde-ieuske Fryske Sprekwurden Ferklearre en yn har Tiid Besjoen. Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy. Van der Veen, K.F. (2001) West Frisian dialectology and dialects. In H.H. Munske (ed.) Handbuch des Friesischen/Handbook of Frisian Studies (pp. 98−116). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Van der Wal, M. (2010) Standaardtalen in beweging. Standaardisatie en destandaardisatie in Nederland, Vlaanderen en Zuid-Afrika. In M. van der Wal and E. Francken (eds) Standaardtalen in beweging (pp. 11−26). Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Nodus Publikationen. Versloot, A.P. (2008) Mechanisms of Language Change. Vowel Reduction in 15th Century West Frisian. Utrecht: LOT. Vries, O. (1993) ‘Naar Ploeg en Koestal Vluchtte Uw Taal’. De Verdringing van het Fries als Schrijftaal door het Nederlands (tot 1580). Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. Vries, O. (1997) From Old Frisian to Dutch: The elimination of Frisian as a written language in the sixteenth century. In B. Synak and T. Wicherkiewicz (eds) Language Minorities and Minority Languages in the Changing Europe (pp. 239−244). Gdańsk: Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Vries, O. (2001) Die Verdrängung des Altfriesischen als Schreibsprache. In H.H. Munske (ed.) Handbuch des Friesischen/Handbook of Frisian Studies (pp. 606–613). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal (2005) samengesteld door het Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie in opdracht van de Nederlandse Taalunie, met een Leidraad door Ludo Permentier. Tielt/Den Haag: Lanoo Uitgeverij/SDU Uitgevers. See http:// woordenlijst.org/ (accessed 24 March 2015). Wurdboek fan de Fryske Taal/Woordenboek der Friese Taal (1984−2011). Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy (De Tille, Afûk). 25 volumes. See http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=WFT (accessed 24 March 2015). Zondag, K. (2011) Lange Oanrin, Koarte Sprong. Twatalich Underwiis yn Fryslân tusken 1800 en 1980. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy/Afûk.

22 The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today, between Maintenance and Variation Miren Lourdes Oñederra

The Past The successfully ongoing standardisation of Basque started in the late 1960s, when Euskaltzaindia ‘The Academy of the Basque Language’,1 led by the illustrious linguist Koldo Mitxelena, proposed the basic codification of a standard form or Euskara Batua ‘unified Basque’. Spelling and nominal declension norms were fixed for written Basque at an extraordinary meeting organised by the Academy in 1968. In its final manifesto, the Academy emphasised that the object of standardisation was the written form of the language (literatura euskera, literally ‘literature Basque’) and that its success would depend on teachers and writers (Euskaltzaindia, 1968). Auxiliary verbal paradigms were settled between 1972 and 1973, and synthetic verbs were standardised by 1977. Despite fierce but rather soon subdued opposition, the model was almost immediately adopted by most educators and writers (Michelena, [1977] 2011; Sarasola, 1978), in other words, by what Haugen (1966: 933) would call influential groups. Among the factors that contributed to that success, one is especially important: in the 1960s, Basque definitely became the main cohesive factor of Basque nationalism in contrast to the more ethnically oriented 19th-century nationalist ideology. The sense of community, structured in this way around the language, was reinforced by the struggle against Franco’s dictatorship, which had been particularly repressive against minority languages (Siguan, 1994). Teaching and learning the unified language became a form of cultural resistance during the relatively more flexible last period of the dictatorship. The end of the Franco regime after his death in 1975 and the subsequent beginning of democracy in Spain brought about, among many

342

The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today

343

other positive consequences, that Basque became co-official with Spanish in part of the Basque-speaking territory: in the autonomous community of the Basque Country, which comprises the provinces of Bizkaia, Gipuzkoa and Álava/Araba, and in part of Navarre. This change in status caused an important increase in the number of second language learners (no longer driven exclusively by ideology but also economically motivated).2 At the same time, Basque started to be used in areas such as the mass media, the universities and administration, where use of the standard variety was more appropriate than the existing diverse dialectal varieties. 3 As this sketchy contextualisation should make us suspect, Basque language normalisation is still under way. This is not only the case because, as was accurately noted by Milroy (1994: 27), standardisation is always an ongoing process, but also because in the case of Basque its standardisation was practically simultaneous with the expansion of the language for use by new speakers and situations in which it had never been used before. One of the still unresolved questions is the standardisation of pronunciation, probably better referred to as the pronunciation of the standard variety. That was, at least, the attitude of the Academy when it first faced the task a long time after the written standard had been proposed. Although radio and television professionals had long been asking for pronunciation norms, the Academy only commissioned a group of linguists to work on the issue in 1993 (Basque TV had been broadcasting since 1983). The first draft was presented in 1994 (Oñederra, 1994a, 1994b) and, finally, a team made up of linguists and teachers worked on the norms for the Euskara Batuaren Ahoskera Zaindua ‘Careful Pronunciation of Standard Basque’ between 1996 and 1998.4 The team’s proposals were accepted by the Academy and then published at the end of 1998. After that, normative work on pronunciation was interrupted until 2013, when a new committee was instituted. There was a long lapse of time between the establishment of basic norms for the written language and those given for its oral use, amounting altogether to 30 years (1968−1998). During all this time, people had to write, but they mainly had to speak as well. And, of course, they spoke under a variety of circumstances, in different sociological and stylistic situations. Some of these circumstances would ideally have required a standard variety. However, no explicit pattern of pronunciation was available. De facto, Basque speakers could lean on two linguistic standards of reference for their pronunciation. One was the exclusively written norm of Standard Basque and the other was constituted by the previously existing dialects with their natural phonologies. But these dialects could not be automatically incorporated into the oral form of the standard for the simple reason that there were too many of them and that they were too diverse. Only the central and eastern varieties were linguistically close

344

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

enough to allow their speakers to rely on their spontaneous speech for the oral rendering of the standard. But even these speakers were reluctant to do so. It seems that compatible dialectal features were considered unsuitable for the new standard. Apart from those native speakers who could not rely on their standard, there was also the new type of Basque speaker who did not have any direct dialectal reference on which to model their pronunciation, those who wished to learn Basque as a second language, the so-called euskaldun berriak ‘new Basques’. By 2011, these speakers already comprised more than half of the 16- to 24-year-old Basque-speaking population in Spain. 5

The Present Since 1998, there have been norms for the pronunciation of the standard variety of Basque. However, these norms are only known by a relative minority of speakers, mainly those working for the media or teachers and students. Although a few basic hints about stylistic variation in the standard were given within the norms, current practice is relatively chaotic. Active use of the norms in actual speech is quite irregular. Whether or not norms are applied largely depends on the social circumstances and psychological characteristics of conscious speakers, and these speakers are imitated only by some and ignored by others, while some people even criticise them. In general, the question remains what to do with the standard and the dialects when it comes to actual language use. Not surprisingly, dialects are in general considered to be colloquial while any form the standard may take is considered to be a formal register. This well-known pattern is intensified by the sociological history of Basque bilingualism: along its history the Basque language was abandoned by social elites and restricted to households and small villages, while other languages occupied the public domain. Consequently, variation in Basque is rich along the geographical axis, but stylistically poor: numerous locally based varieties and subvarieties have developed, but functional variation is very limited. What then do speakers do in their everyday reality when they need or want to speak in the standard variety? They tend to take, as far as possible, the written form of Standard Basque as the basic representation of their speech. The specific phonetic realisations of the written characters, however, directly depend on the speaker’s phonological background (be it one of the Basque dialects or, in the case of second language learners, Spanish or French), particularly on his or her phonemic inventory, as graphemes will be interpreted in phonemic terms.6 Standard Basque is thus devoid of any phonological characteristics that might be identified with dialectal features. To make a long story short, we could say that spelling pronunciation has largely become the oral standard.

The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today

345

The identification of phonemes with characters and the avoidance of dialectal phonology exclusively apply to phonemic features, which are the ones that the speaker can perceive and therefore control. However, allophonic phenomena which are often equivalent to Spanish or French are frequently attested, as in ez dakit (/es dakit/) [ezðakit] ‘(I) don’t know’ which shows allophonic regressive voicing of the sibilant and continuant realisation of the dental stop (cf. Sp. desde [dezðe] ‘from’) instead of the so far most traditional [estakit] with phonemic progressive devoicing of the dental stop.7 Allophonic disyllabification of postvocalic /i/ also applied unconsciously in the formal heinean ‘as far as’, which is pronounced [ejnean] by speakers whose spontaneous dialectal phonology would require palatal assimilation and its subsequent glide deletion: [eɲean] or, even vowel raising [eɲian]. In very relevant sociolinguistic circumstances such as teaching, speakers also tend to model their speech on features of the oral spelling standard. Fundamentally, the application of dialectal rules and processes is avoided. Many teachers today still perpetuate the spelling pronunciation that the first teachers of the new unified Basque initiated in the 1960s. It is especially important that teachers should understand and play their role correctly in a balanced standardisation. Most second language learners of Basque do not have any direct access to dialectal pronunciation if their teachers avoid dialectal features in the classroom (for the pronunciation of grammatical choices that were made for the standard variety). To make things more difficult, we must take into account that some language teachers are now second language speakers of Basque. The general belief among teachers and students that the avoidance of dialects simply leads to the adoption of Spanish or French phonological characteristics for the pronunciation of Standard Basque (although this is only partially true) is practical for didactic purposes, since – mainly for ideological reasons – nobody wants to sound Spanish when speaking Basque. But although this fear might work as an argument in favour of the presence of dialectal features and lively speech in the classroom, it is still not sufficient for the introduction of stylistic and social variation with the standard variety. The desirability of variation would have to be adopted by both first and second language speakers of Basque. Lack of functional variation is also found with those speakers who, due to their sociological and/or dialectal backgrounds, feel too distant from the standard variety. These speakers tend to ignore the standard altogether, even in situations that would normally require a formal register, such as public lectures or official speeches. Some speakers are simply not competent enough to be able to use a register other than the most colloquial one. However, among educated people, the exclusive use of dialectal informal registers seems to be a sort of ideological choice, and this is probably increasing among young Basque speakers who never directly experienced

346

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

the struggle for a standard or unified Basque of the old times. This attitude is more or less explicitly supported by certain members of the intellectual and academic elites under the excuse of dialect preservation with regard to what they seem to consider a solidly established standard. A discussion of prosody would require a longer study and further reflection than is possible in the present context. Suffice it to note here that the adoption of Spanish or French patterns of accent and intonation in the pronunciation of the standard variety is more obvious and absolute than the sometimes partial borrowing of segmental features of vowels and consonants. This is possibly due to the non-segmental or indivisible nature of prosody. At any rate, prosody seems to be the first thing to be modified when native speakers switch to the standard, and this is the most salient characteristic of second language learners of Basque (Elordieta et al., 1998; Oñederra, 1998b). The phonological consequences of this process are obvious to anybody who agrees with Donegan and Stampe’s (1979: 142) idea that ‘[t]he application of prosodic processes is the most important factor in the living phonological pattern of a language’. Of course, the pronunciation of vowels and consonants is directly affected in this process, as ‘the selection of segmental processes is largely determined, even in childhood, by the way segmental representations are mapped onto prosodic structure in speech’, as Donegan and Stampe put it. The close relationship between prosodic patterns and segmental processes must be taken into account if the pronunciations of different dialects are to be kept. Hualde (2011) offers a different perspective when, exclusively concerning accent, he proposes that only one of the existing dialectal patterns should be selected for the standard variety and taught to all new learners of the language. Hualde’s proposal is taken up in the tightly normative recent publications by Alberdi (2014) and Gaminde et al. (2014).

The Future If standardisation of the language is understood not just as the codification of one supralocal variety but as the structuring of the whole universe of the language, varieties other than the most unified and inevitably abstract one will have to have their place. As Haugen (1966: 932) wrote, ‘[a] complete language has its formal and informal styles, its regional accents, and its class or occupational jargons, which do not destroy its unity so long as they are clearly diversified in function and show a reasonable degree of solidarity with one another’. If that whole universe can be deliberately planned, the challenge for the linguist would be to find a way to make Standard Basque phonologically compatible with the dialects. A necessary condition for that to be feasible is that all the participants in the standardisation process (rulers, teachers and other speakers) understand that an oral standard will always be more variegated

The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today

347

than a written one. That is to say, different dialectal colourings will give rise to several standard pronunciations. The main dialectal characteristics to be incorporated into those oral standards should be very carefully chosen, so that inevitable dialectal loss is acceptable to the speakers of the different varieties.8 More dialectal features would be allowed in less formal standards on a gradual scale from the maximally careful and formal to the most colloquial and intimate registers, where the full battery of dialectal characteristics would be expressed. For that endeavour to be successful, a great didactic effort should be made in the teaching of how different sociophonological and phonostylistic levels should correlate with different degrees of dialect presence. It might be doubtful whether the present times are as good an era for the implementation of such an oral standard as the more militant and enthusiastic moment of the former dictatorship and the beginning of democracy was for the unification of Basque. Some mention of the criteria established in the 1998 Norms for the Careful Pronunciation of Standard Basque might be pertinent here, in order to be able to understand what the original ideas were like and for the purpose of approaching the work lying ahead of us. The explicit characterisation of the pronunciation norms as those for the formal use of the standard language was probably one of the main advantages in the process of the development of the norms. The scope of the oral standard was limited to those situations in which careful pronunciation of the common or unified standard might be expected, thus leaving the door open to dialectal and stylistic variability. Variability was explicitly formulated in comments accompanying the norms, which specified how, besides the recommended pronunciation of a given character or a sequence of characters, other possibilities were not only admissible but also considered to be correct in more colloquial registers. As far as dialectal diversity is concerned, many of the proposed norms themselves were not unique. In general terms, four types may be distinguished among the norms proposed by the Academy of the Basque Language (Euskaltzaindia, 1998). These types will be briefly described here in order to illustrate how dialectal and sociological considerations permeated the basic phonological criteria of the norms, sometimes giving way to the apparent arbitrariness of flexible norms. The four possibilities formulated in the norms were the following: (1) The recommended option is always best, e.g. obstruents should be devoiced in sibilant-stop sequences like ez dakit [estakit] ‘I don’t know’, ez daukat [estawkat] ‘I don’t have’. (2) The recommended option is good for the most careful pronunciation, but it would be no harm to use it in other spoken registers as well, e.g. produce as /g/ in words like biologia.9

348

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

(3) The recommended option is only appropriate for the formal register, and existing alternatives must be remembered in other situations, e.g. should be pronounced [ea], but it is also correct to use [ia], [ie] or [i] in less formal circumstances. (4) Different pronunciations are accepted as part of the standard in correspondence with different dialectal areas. This applies to remarkable characteristics of large geographical areas such as the palatalising versus depalatalising dialects (more on this below) or the two bilingual domains. The standard pronunciation of in loanwords like garaje ‘garage’ or erlijio ‘religion’ may therefore be both [ʒ] in the speech of French-Basque speakers or [x] for Spanish-Basque bilinguals.10 Should these recommendations be adopted, variability is assured by intradialectal flexibility in the third type of norms, provided speakers have other choices in their own variety. Formal teaching of Basque to new speakers should incorporate these principles into their practice.11 Interdialectal flexibility will result not only from the application of the fourth type of norms but also from another source of variation: different phonemic inventories. There are phonemic units not shared by all the dialectal varieties (e.g., /h/, /y/, /x/). The team working for the standardisation of pronunciation considered that precisely the standardisation of formal registers could never justify the reduction of phoneme inventories. Conversely, the introduction of these phonemes in other varieties would be phonologically senseless and phonetically very hard or impossible for the majority of speakers (see Zuazo, 2008: 866, about initial attempts to generalise /h/). Only the reintroduction of the prestigious contrast between laminal and apical sibilants was recommended, though not made obligatory. In the same way, the differentiation of central and lateral palatals was recommended. The reason for the latter was clearly the high prestige of the lateral pronunciation, which many Basques consider distinctive of their pronunciation despite the uncertain Spanish origin of its ongoing loss by neutralisation (Oñederra, 2012). Let us now look more closely at the third and fourth types of norms by applying them to two phonological cases, palatalisation and vowel-raising, in order to see how the relative permeability between norm and dialects was materialised. Factors contributing to the different degrees of abstraction of the norm with respect to dialectal variation will be mentioned in the process. In some Basque dialectal varieties, coronal consonants following a high palatal vowel or glide become palatals: /bi+na/ ‘two’ (+ distributive suffix) [biɲa]. In other Basque varieties, we find depalatalisation: Spanish España ‘Spain’ becomes [espajnia]). The palatalisation of sonorants was considered appropriate for the formal standard but not necessary, so as not to ban the pronunciation in dialectal varieties where such palatalisation exists, but equally not

The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today

349

to impose it on speakers from varieties where such palatalisation is not productive. Palatalisation of obstruents was not accepted as part of the pronunciation standard, mainly due to its more reduced productivity in existing dialects. Therefore, both [ejnean], in the non-palatalising dialectal areas, and [e(j)ɲean], in the palatalising ones, may be considered standard renderings of heinean ‘as far as’. The initial aspiration will of course be part of the standard variety for those speakers who have /h/ in their phonemic inventories. Therefore, the three different pronunciations of the same word are all standard forms. The flexible norm allowing for both a palatalising and a non-palatalising pronunciation within the standard might be interpreted as an attempt to preserve the long-attested binary division between palatalising and depalatalising Basque dialects. Promoting palatalisation to a standard status would prevent the loss of the assimilation process in those speakers who still have it in their phonological system, and at the same time counteract the tendency towards spelling pronunciation. Vowel-raising, however, was considered inappropriate for the formal pronunciation standard. The reason for the different treatment of the two phenomena is not a simple matter. It was never explicitly debated, either in the Academy, or in the Unified Basque Committee, but it was nevertheless unanimously accepted. This acceptance is an illustrative example of how in many instances these types of choices and agreements cannot be explained in strict linguistic terms. On purely phonological grounds, vowel-raising could be considered a good candidate for the formal registers, as it is a clear fortitive dissimilation, i.e. a general type of phonological process typically associated with formal pronunciation, but it would have to be imposed on those speakers who do not have vowel-raising in their phonological system. However, in contrast to the freedom allotted to palatalising and non-palatalising dialectal choices, the non-raising pronunciation of /ea/ as [ea] was the only one proposed for the standard variety. One single choice is of course the ideal solution from a normative point of view: standardisation promotes uniformity (Milroy, 1994). But that might not have been the main reason in this case, or at least not the only reason, for the success of the raising solution. I will hypothetically propose that a phonological basis made the – impressionistically taken – decision easier. Although both palatalisation and vowel-raising are dialectally variable in that they are not shared by all the speakers of the language and despite the fact that both features have a considerable dialectal extension, vowelraising is much more often as well as more regularly subject to alternation: even speakers who pronounce etxea ‘house’ as [et∫ia] in the singular, say [et∫e] (etxe) each time they produce the indefinite form (‘a house’). The alternation tells them that [i] in [et∫ia] is derived from a more basic /e/, and it seems that pronouncing the basic form makes speech sound more formal to legislators. The fact that, as the examples show, the standard spelling

350

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

does not reflect vowel-raising must play an important role too. But that does not account for the different treatment given to vowel-raising and to palatalisation, since spelling does not reflect palatalisation either.

Harmonising Stability and Variation (Norm and Dialects?) Whatever was the cause for the different treatment of palatalisation and dissimilation, norms were on the whole, formulated in such a way that a relatively flexible interpretation could be made of them. Of course, those norms generate, so to say, their own variation. The new pattern added by the norm increases the inherently extreme variability of spoken forms. This I once observed to be the case with a French-Basque bilingual lecturer who perfectly applied the =[g] norm when saying kronologikoa [kronologikoa] ‘chronological’ but almost immediately produced logikoa [loʒikoa] ‘logical’ as well.12 Such irregularities scandalise very restrictive normativists, but they constitute natural and therefore unavoidable variation. Actually, the idea of variation is altogether a necessary part of the correct understanding of what language is about, so allowing for it in the standard should always be interpreted as a positive sign of linguistic life. But it is the other type of variation that should not only be admitted but also advanced and promoted at this point of the process of standardisation. That is, it should be possible to construct some sort of continuum between the different dialectal varieties and the formal standard. For instance, such a continuum would account for how an eastern dialect speaker moves through his or her speech along a scale from less formal (more local) to more formal (less local, but never be completely devoid of local colour). That variability is necessary if the standard is to be phonologically alive, if it is to be real speech. Theoretically and in very general terms, the idea is that differences expressed in the third type of norm distinguished above might be used as stages on such a stylistic scale. The aim of our present work would be, so to say, the codification of colloquial norms together with the standard ones, which is not easy. Although geographical dialects have been relatively well investigated, the study of different speech styles is not sufficiently developed. In this respect, Basque is no different from other languages as far as the study of different speech styles is concerned (cf. Milroy & Milroy, [1985] 2012: 51–54). Until the norms were published in 1998, this task entailed many linguistic problems concerning the choice of dialectal characteristics to be promoted to standard status or subordinated to stylistic fluctuation in the dialect−standard dynamic. We must now deal with the question of the degree of informality at which other dialectal features must be rescued

The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today

351

for colloquial use. Knowing as we do now that ‘formal’ and ‘colloquial’ are not two separate independent domains but rather the end points of a continuous line, how many levels should be distinguished for teaching purposes? This leads us to challenges at the didactic level: how does one teach speakers to move along that continuous line? One does not teach or learn pronunciation as one learns verbal forms or case suffixes, and less so if stylistic variation should be learned. Can we (technically, sociologically) teach variation? The same issue is raised by Lochtman in the present volume. How does one manage to socialise such a flexible, dynamic norm? Moreover, how can a standard harmonise with pre-existing dialects in a principled way without completely obliterating them? How could we structure complementary distribution between the standard and the dialects? One of the conclusions of the 1996−1998 team working on these questions (see section ‘The Past’) was that teaching pronunciation has more to do with the teaching of singing or theatre than with the teaching of grammar and vocabulary (Oñederra, 1998a). The current pronunciation committee is seeking help from experts like the phonologist João Veloso (a linguistic consultant of the National Theatre of Porto) and Julia Marin, who has considerable experience in coaching Basque actors’ diction for use of different registers on stage (cf. Marin, 2011; Veloso, 2013). Together, we intend to explore the possibilities of bringing that experience to the classroom for effective teaching of the pronunciation standard. Despite reasonable voices that warn us about the dangers of prescriptively established standards (as explored by other authors in the present volume), it must be taken into account that much of the orderly functional variation that freely develops in a normal, healthy language community (Milroy, 1994: 21) must perhaps be consciously cared for in a minority language. Variation must somehow be purposefully planned, particularly in the case of a language like Basque, which is only spoken by bilingual speakers in two different bilingual settings (the French- and the Spanish-Basque areas). As linguists, however, we must acknowledge that this perspective is not an easy one, and that we must be extremely careful not to try to control too tightly what should be the spontaneous evolution of the language.

Concluding Remarks Standardisation of written Basque has so far very neatly met Haugen’s (1966) four definitional features: selection, codification, elaboration and acceptance (cf. Hualde & Zuazo, 2007). It would be good if, mutatis mutandis, also the standardisation of pronunciation could follow those constitutive processes. In the framework of Milroy’s (1994: 20) explanation of the process of standardisation, we could say that standard

352

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

pronunciation has already been, if not imposed, at least proposed by the Academy. Norms have also been overtly coded (‘legislated’, in Milroy’s terms), though communication of the proposal has not had the echo of the written standardisation of the language in 1968.13 An important reason for that is the different cultural, political and historical situation today compared to the more militant atmosphere of the late dictatorship (or the first years after its end). But I would like to hazard a guess that the greater difficulty of reaching uniformity in pronunciation and the lower status given to it in academic spheres are also part of the issue. As Milroy and Milroy ([1985] 2012: 55) put it, ‘[s]poken language is taken for granted’. The relative invisibility of the spoken language vis-à-vis its written form weakens, in the case of pronunciation, Milroy’s other characteristic of standardisation (that it be carried within a conscious ideology), and agrees with his view that ‘standardization has always had less effect on pronunciation than on other linguistic levels’ (Milroy, 1994: 28). Final success will not only depend on whether or not motivation is enough, now that the pro-unification militant times are over. It is also important that normative agents in the form of the Academy, education and the media fulfil their task correctly, in the sense of being flexible and realistic, keeping the balance between maintenance and variation: ‘the norms existing in real speech communities are variable norms’ (Milroy, 1994: 20). Taking care of the weakness of a language under threat should go hand in hand with giving way to its functionally necessary resources, such as an orderly varied pronunciation (cf. Milroy, 1994: 20). We must now test in practice to what extent the reconciliation of prescription with variation may be carried out through the flexible design and application of standardisation guidelines. The significant number of speakers who learn Basque as a second language, and therefore have no dialectal background in the language, should be taken into account in order to avoid creating a uniform, rigid standard. One object of the process of the phonological standardisation of Basque being that all speakers should have access to stylistic variation, we should be able to find a way to harmonise the norms for the careful pronunciation of formal Basque with dialectal forms for the more colloquial registers.

Notes (1)

The Academy of the Basque Language is the only official institution shared by all the territories where Basque is more or less commonly spoken: the autonomous Basque Country and Navarre, in the north of Spain, and the three provinces of southern France (Labourd, la Basse-Navarre and la Soule) which do not constitute any kind of political-administrative unit within France (Azurmendi et al., 2008: 36). As head of the Basque Pronunciation Committee in the Academy, I sincerely thank the other members for their constant help and inspiration in writing this chapter. I also wholeheartedly thank Alison Keable for making my English much

The Standardisation of Pronunciation: Basque Today

(2) (3) (4)

(5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(10)

(11) (12) (13)

353

better. Part of the work presented here was developed within the research project EHU 13/19 ‘Euskararen prosodiaren estandarizaziorantz’. See Michelena ([1977] 2011: 65–66) for interesting comments about the influence this had on the language. In this chapter, the terms ‘dialect’ and ‘dialectal’ simply refer to geographical varieties of the language. The term zaindua ‘careful’ was chosen in order to avoid the connotations of jasoa ‘high’ following Michelena’s advice, who insisted on the fact that carefulness is a common feature of those styles in which speakers may pay attention to the form as well as the content of their words, i.e. the speech styles for which the norms were proposed. According to the latest sociolinguistic data (Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco, 2013), 52% of these are in the Basque Country and 54% in Navarre (in the FrenchBasque provinces, the proportion of new speakers in this age range was 38.6%). Standard Basque orthography is phonetic in the sense that in most cases it allows for a one character−one phoneme identification. It must also be noted that first language speakers of Basque also acquire either French or Spanish during childhood. For the sake of convenience here the difference between apical (orthographically represented by in Basque) and laminal sibilants (orthographically, ) is ignored. Something close to Milroy’s (1994: 20) consensus norms of regional speech communities would be sought here. Incidentally, proposing /g/ for learned words like biologia (versus Spanish-Basque speakers’ /bioloxia/ or French-Basque speakers’ /bioloʒia/) is based on one of the basic arguments of the whole standardisation process, the search for dialectal unity. Important factors for the decision included: the phonetic existence of /g/ in the pronunciation of the ending -gia in languages like German; the fact that /g/ is etymologically linked to the present [x] and [ʒ] pronunciations and its existence in the common phonemic inventory (in contrast to /x/ and /ʒ/, which were accepted for more colloquial words and uses as shown below). This norm accommodates the results of the diverging diachronic evolution of one basic unit (uniquely represented by the character in standard spelling), grosso modo: eastern and western /ʒ/ or /ɟ/, central /x/. [g] , [ɟ] were recommended as careful pronunciations of non-borrowed forms, as in jan ‘to eat’. The difficulty often advanced here is that of populations where original Basque had completely disappeared. The fact that she did not use the French loanwords logika and kronologika (logique and cronologique) directly suggests that the speaker had learnt Basque academically and that she was conscious of the formal context in which she was speaking. See Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2012: 36−37) for an enlightening criticism of the stages of standardisation proposed by Haugen in relation to prescriptivism.

References Alberdi, A. (2014) Ahoskera. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco. Azurmendi, M.J., Larrañaga, N. and Apalategi, J. (2008) Bilingualism, identity and citizenship in the Basque Country. In M. Niño-Murcia and J. Rothman (eds) Bilingualism and Identity: Spanish at the Crossroads with Other Languages (pp. 35–62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Donegan, P. and Stampe, D. (1979) The study of natural phonology. In D.A. Dinnsen (ed.) Current Approaches to Phonological Theory (pp. 126−173). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

354

Part 4: Redefining Boundaries: Current Issues and Challenges

Elordieta, G., Gaminde, I. and Hualde, J.I. (1998) Euskal azentua gaur eta bihar. Euskera 43 (2), 399–423. See http://www.euskaltzaindia.net/dok/euskera/49465.pdf. Euskaltzaindia (1968) Literatura euskeraren batasunari buruz Euskaltzaindiaren agiria. Euskera 13, 250. Euskaltzaindia (1998) Euskara batuaren ahoskera zaindua. Euskera 43 (2), 485–490. Eusko Jaurlaritza/Gobierno Vasco (2013) V. Encuesta Sociolingüística. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco. Gaminde, I., Aurrekoetxea, G., Etxebarria, A., Garay, U. and Romero, A. (2014) Ahoskera Lantzeko Argibideak eta Jarduerak. Bilbao: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Haugen, E. (1966) Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist 68, 922–935. Hualde, J.I. (2011) Hitz-mailako prosodiaren azterketa eta tipologia: Zenbait ondorio euskararen hezkuntzarako. In G. Aurrekoetxea and I. Gaminde (eds) Prosodiaz eta Hezkuntzaz I. Jardunaldiak. I Jornadas sobre Prosodia y Educación (pp. 11−27). Bilbao: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Hualde, J.I. and Zuazo, K. (2007) The standardization of the Basque language. Language Problems and Language Planning 31 (2), 143−168. Marin, J. (2011) Esatearen ederra. In Mintzola Fundazioa and Bertsozale Elkartea (eds) Ahoa bete Hots II Jardunaldiak: Idatziak Ahotsa Hartzen Duenean (pp. 23−33). Andoain: Lanku Bertso Zerbitzuak S.L. Michelena, L. ([1977] 2011) La lengua vasca. In J.A. Lakarra and I. Ruiz Arzalluz (eds) Obras Completas IV, Anejos del ASJU LVII (pp. 13–66). San Sebastián-Vitoria: Seminario Julio de Urquijo, Diputación de Gipuzkoa, Universidad del País Vasco/ Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Milroy, J. (1994) The notion of ‘standard language’ and its applicability to the study of Early Modern English pronunciation. In D. Stein and I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds) Towards a Standard English: 1600−1800 (pp. 19−29). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. ([1985] 2012) Authority in Language. Investigating Standard English. London/New York: Routledge. Oñederra, M.L. (1994a) Ahoskera araupetzeaz. Euskera 39, 1523−1526, 1589−1605. Oñederra, M.L. (1994b) Abiaburu zehatz batzuk. Euskera 39, 1533−1542. Oñederra, M.L. (1998a) Ahoskera lantaldearen errendapen txostena. Euskera 43 (1), 265−274. Oñederra, M.L. (1998b) Prosodiaren oraina eta ahoskera arauak. Euskera 43 (2), 439–449. See http://www.euskaltzaindia.eus/dok/euskera/49467.pdf. Oñederra, M.L. (2012) Sobre la deslateralización de las palatales o ‘yeísmo’. In B. Camus Bergareche and S. Gómez Seibane (eds) El castellano en el País Vasco, Anejos del ASJU LXX (pp. 139−154). San Sebastián-Vitoria: Seminario Julio de Urquijo, Diputación de Gipuzkoa, Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea. Sarasola, I. (1978) Bustiduren ortografiaz. Euskera 24, 621–628. Siguan, M. (1994) España Plurilingüe. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2012) The codification of English in England. In R. Hickey (ed.) Standards of English. Codified Varieties around the World (pp. 34–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Veloso, J. (2013) Accent training of actors for Old and Modern Portuguese at the National Theatre of Porto. Lecture given at the University of the Basque Country, Vitoria, Spain, 2 December 2013. Zuazo, K. (2008) Euskara (batu)aren historiarako. In X. Artiagoitia and J.A. Lakarra (eds) Gramatika Jaietan. Patxi Goenagaren Omenez. Anejos del ASJU LI (pp. 859–868). San Sebastián-Vitoria: Seminario Julio de Urquijo, Diputación de Gipuzkoa, Universidad del País Vasco//Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.

Epilogue: On Establishing the Standard Language – and Language Standards Pam Peters

Standard Language in An Evolutionary Perspective This anthology opens the door to a remarkable range of issues in establishing a standard language and/or language standards. It begins with a seminal chapter from The Netherlands by Dick Smakman and Sandra Nekesa Barasa (Chapter 2), calling for closer attention to be given to the social, political and cultural contexts in which individual standard languages emerge – a more ‘culturalised’ approach. It matters whether the context is monolingual or multilingual, and how the different languages are configured in multilingual contexts: whether there’s diglossia, or perhaps more than one standard language with one of them serving as the prestige language (e.g. the legacy colonial language), and the other, the medium for exercising power and doing business (e.g. the nativised standard or code-switched/code-switching variety, like Taglish in the Philippines; Thompson, 2003). Thus, the functionalities served by the standard language should be taken into account, as well as its linguistic and sociolinguistic properties. This provides a broad platform for reading the diverse language case studies, and expands the conceptual framework for discussing standard languages. It invites further discussion of the contextual factors and conceptual issues in the formation of the standard, as indicated in the section headings. The case studies in the anthology present issues for both major and minor languages of the world, highlighting their different priorities in relation to the standard language and language standards. In some cases, the languages under discussion are localised within the borders of a single country, while others are spread across borders into neighbouring countries, or are now embedded in widely separated parts of the world as the legacy of colonialism. In the second case, and especially the third, we

355

356

Epilogue

have what the Australian linguist Michael Clyne refers to as a ‘pluricentric’ language, responding to different social, linguistic and cultural influences in different national and geographical contexts (Clyne, 1992). An added factor impacting on the major languages used in geographically dispersed countries is the ongoing relationship between the satellite countries and the former colonial power, the original source of the language, whose traditions may cast a long shadow over use of the language in other parts of the world. The view of the standard language from the centre/epicentre of a pluricentric language may not be identical with that held in the satellite countries, especially if they are a newly constituted independent nation, entitled and empowered to forge their own language policy and standard language. Yet, the case of Lithuanian (see Chapter 19, by Loreta Vaicekauskienė) shows the linguistic halo effect of the former colonial power hanging over the newly restored nation state, with continuing appeals to Russian scholarly tradition to support the Lithuanian standard language. The tendency to refer back to the linguistic norms of the colonising power is recognised in evolutionary models of English worldwide, as an early stage in the development of an independent regional variety. Schneider’s (2007) model refers to it as the ‘exonormative’ stage (Stage 2 out of 5), which precedes its ‘nativisation’ (Stage 3), and its ‘endonormativity’ (Stage 4), by which time the language is established in the satellite country, with its own linguistic norms recognised as part of the regional standard. Endonormativity is strongly associated with the creation of national dictionaries and other language references, although this also depends on the economics of publishing in the satellite country, and its capacity to publish independently of the former colonial power (Clyne, 1992: 460). Interestingly, Stage 5 in Schneider’s model is that of ‘internal differentiation’, i.e. the stage at which sociolinguistic variations on the standard language emerge and may consolidate, as identity markers for certain groups within the nation. In this model, the standard language is the platform for subsequent variation, rather than a yardstick for disallowing variation. The evolutionary model for new Englishes has been effectively applied to American and Australian English (Buschfeld et al., 2014), and also to the emergence of the ‘old’ standard language, i.e. British English in its home country (Peters, 2012). As a model, it lends itself to the description of satellite varieties of other major pluricentric languages, such as French and Spanish, not to mention Arabic, Chinese and Russian, and the emerging regional standards within each. It brings the evolutionary perspective to bear on divergent language usage between historically connected nations, and insights into the status of the standard language that is the focus of prescriptivism.

On Establishing the Standard Language – and Language Standards

357

National Language Management, Imperialism and Postcolonialism The common agencies and processes of language standardisation are evident in retrospect for major languages such as English, French, Chinese and Russian, with their respective long-term histories. As political agglomerations of smaller states, all provide evidence of how standardisation of the language becomes an instrument of state, a means to unify the nation, or at least its political discourse. In most countries, as in France, China and Russia, there are government language policies and offices of the national language to manage and regulate its use within their borders. Each of those countries is effectively a multilingual context for the national standard, whether the minority languages that coexist within are recognised or downplayed as ‘dialects’. The presence of lively heritage languages can be a strong motivation for national governments to forge policies to mandate the standard language and its functions, and thus to work against rather than promote multilingualism (Lo Bianco, 2010: 48–53). There are, nevertheless, many kinds of language planning activities which can be built into language policy to support multilingualism and speakers of minority languages. The British government has never articulated a national language policy for the use of English within the United Kingdom, perhaps because of the sensitivity of acknowledging the heritage Celtic languages within its national dominions, from the Scottish Union (1706−1707) to the Union with Ireland (1800), and the Union with Northern Ireland (1921). Another pervasive factor seems to be public resistance to any form of official language management in England, mentioned in the 18th century by both Samuel Johnson and Lord Chesterfield, the patron of Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755). Johnson’s reflections on the non-compliant character of English people are explicitly linked with the unfulfilled movement to establish an English academy with the authority to manage the language: We live in an age in which it is a kind of publick sport to refuse all respect that cannot be enforced. The edicts of an English academy would, probably, be read by many only that they might be sure to disobey them. The present manners of our nation would deride authority. (Johnson, Lives of the Poets [1779−1781] 1825) Lord Chesterfield recognises the same popular disrespect for authority, but finds a notional solution in the role of linguistic dictator, on the model of imperial Rome:

358

Epilogue

It must be owned that our language is at present in a state of anarchy … Good order and authority are now necessary. But where shall we find them, and at the same time the obedience due to them. We must have recourse to the old Roman expedient in times of confusion, and choose a dictator. Upon this principle, I give my vote for Mr Johnson, to fill that great and arduous post; and I hereby declare that I make a total surrender of all my rights and privileges in the English language as a free-born subject, to the said Mr Johnson during the term of his dictatorship … (Chesterfield, Works of Lord Chesterfield including Letters to his Son 1834) These quotations converge in what may have been an 18th-century trope on the defiant English character, seen from the democratic or aristocratic point of view. But Chesterfield finds reason to set it aside in favour of imperial thinking, at least in the short run. The absence of official policy and national institutions to manage the standard language (see Chapter 7, by Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade) left room for educated and entrepreneurial citizens to satisfy the need for authority in language. While Johnson and Chesterfield lacked the political authority that a government language policy might have given them, they successfully channelled aspects of cultural and national identity – the independently minded Englishman and the growing sense of imperialism – to give linguistic authority to the Dictionary. The imperial factor probably helped to sustain the idea of a language standard in England, and the comprehensive national dictionary became an agency of it from the late 18th century onwards. Since Britain was the hub of a growing empire of non-English-speaking nation states, a common standard English was needed as the language of administration in far-flung places such as South Africa, India and Australia. English was already pluricentric, with the functional need for a standard language that reached beyond the British Isles. The centrifugal perspective on standard English is clear in the earlier 19th century, notably in Lord Macaulay’s ‘Minute’ (1835), which advocated making English the medium of education in India, so as to create an Indian middle class which was able to represent British interests and to ‘refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature’. Yet, by the start of the 20th century the British perspective on the scope of the standard language had changed to become quite centripetal, ready to embrace words from overseas. As James Murray, the first editor of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), asked: Does [the English language] include the English of Great Britain, … of America, … of Australia, … and of South Africa, and of the Englishmen of India, who live in bungalows, hunt in jungles, wear … pyjamas, write

On Establishing the Standard Language – and Language Standards

359

chits instead of letters, and eat kedgeree and chutni? Yes! In its most comprehensive sense … they are all forms of English. (Murray, 1911: 19) Murray’s affirmative attitude to the inclusion of foreign words in the OED earned him some criticism (Ogilvie, 2013: Chapter 3). But in the absence of a national policy on standard English, he was able to articulate and maintain a rational position on including colonial English in the Dictionary. It also served to expand the frontiers of monolingual lexicography beyond any other ‘exemplars’ before or since (Peters, 2016). The imperial factor might have added impetus to the national language policy in other pluricentric nations such as France and Russia, with the need to implant the national language in satellite territories. But there’s scant evidence of the lexical products of colonialism in the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française (first published in 1694), whose later editions were based on a precolonial model of lexicography, and an exclusive, monolithic rather than pluralistic approach to the standard lexicon. The Great Russian Dictionary (1863−1866) of Vladimir Dahl (see Chapter 18, by Arto Mustajoki) was contemporary with the expansion of Russian power, and includes some words from urban vernaculars, but only those used by the intelligentsia. Both French and Russian perspectives on the use of the standard across their empires seem to have remained centrifugal rather than centripetal until the later 20th century. Only with Le Grand Robert (9 volumes, 1992) is there recognition of the value of including regional French words in the dictionary, as part of the national language but according to set criteria – e.g. that French words emanating from West Africa should have been used in at least four or five French-African states. Early versions of the classic French usage book Le Bon Usage (Grevisse, 1936) were indifferent to the regional varieties of French, until revised by André Goosse ([121986] 131993), with an expanded introductory essay on variétés du français. It acknowledges both the range of dialects within France and its European linguistic satellites in Belgium and Switzerland, and overseas in Canada. Colonial expansion added substantially to the domains of both standard French and standard English, entailing profound changes to the notion of the relationship between the standard language and the nation state. Both examples show how the geopolitical context for the standard has become an essential consideration for the ‘home’ country and its overseas satellites.

International Agreements on Minority Languages National governments in Europe and elsewhere are progressively adopting the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) within their language management policies. The European Charter sets up a general framework for the preservation of languages which meet

360

Epilogue

the criteria of being traditionally used by minority populations within particular regions of the larger state, and thus excludes languages brought by recent immigration, as well as other languages which the state treats simply as dialects of the major/official language (such as Breton in France). The European Charter indicates specific undertakings, i.e. linguistic support to be realised in areas such as education, judicial authorities, administrative authorities and public services, media, among others (European Charter). It underwrites the work of the language policy and planning for languages such as Macedonian, which is now accepted as the national language of the former Yugoslav Province of Macedonia, but also a recognised minority language in other former Yugoslav provinces such as Bosnia and Herzegovina (2010). Likewise, it is a recognised minority language in Romania (since 2007), but not yet in Bulgaria or Greece. For Macedonia itself, there’s the added challenge of recognising Albanian as a minority language within its own borders, while seeking to promote Macedonian as the standard language of the new nation (see Chapter 20, by Aleksandra Gjurkova). The status of Macedonian thus varies from context to context, as a minor standard language in the newly constituted Balkan state, and as a recognised minority language in some adjacent states, but unrecognised in others. The status of Basque is also complex, being used as the ‘low’ (L) language in two adjacent but different diglossic situations (where Spanish or French is the ‘high’ (H) language). Basque is now recognised as a minority language in Spain (since 2001), but not yet in France because of constitutional impediments (as for Breton). Still the European Charter underwrites the local undertakings to support Basque education, and use of the language in other state institutions (Chapter 22, by Miren Lourdes Oñederra). It also lends support to the standardising work of the Academy of the Basque Language, to develop the capacity of Basque to serve as a standard language in the two diglossic contexts in which it is used. Much integrative work is needed to rationalise the differences in both written and spoken forms, especially the latter. A further issue is to accommodate the different kinds of national identity that go with the varieties of Basque and its speakers – as with the varieties of Macedonian in several countries. The issue of multiple linguistic identities is magnified in developing regions of Asia and Africa. Where regional and tribal domains do not coincide, they add to the complexity of language politics at higher and lower levels of government. Forging a standard Ewe language out of the cluster of dialects of the Niger-Congo family (Chapter 5, by Felix Ameka) is an illuminating case, showing the challenges of a multidialectal, multilingual context – where most members of the community speak three or four languages and bring linguistic contact with them to their use of the emerging standard. The Ewe case represents a kind of social pluricentricity, also highlighting the fluid linguistic identities of those using the standard,

On Establishing the Standard Language – and Language Standards

361

and the need to accommodate them within the language policy of the nation state. Pluricentricity and its attendant challenges are thus an issue for minor as well as major languages of the world in developing their respective standards, even with new international agreements to support minority languages. One advantage for the minor and minority languages is that the scope for consultation is higher. The involvement of language professionals such as teachers and linguists in developing the standard for minority languages means that government language policy at its best can be well informed, and likely be more effective than when forged by the often remote bureaucracies which provide input to government language policies relating to major languages. On the other hand, the local context for minor and minority languages may allow very particular interests to dominate (Chapter 19, by Loreta Vaicekauskienė), unbalanced by other stakeholders.

Standard Languages: Function and Form Case studies of minor and minority language communities developing their standard languages confirm the basic need to attend to their social and cultural functions. In the typically multilingual contexts in which minority languages are used, their functions need to be affirmed and supported, e.g. their use in Parliament alongside other languages of debate; in the provision of health information (Green et al., 2011) and as the language of teaching at lower and higher levels of education, and at university, even if, in multilingual countries like South Africa, the range of national languages available tapers off from 11 to 2, as students move up the educational pyramid (Kruger, 2009). Attention to language functions reflects ‘elaboration of function’ in Haugen’s ([1966] 1972) four-cell matrix for the development of a standard language. Functionality is the basis on which the standard language is built into the communicative matrix of nation, along with other languages. Yet, where there is more than one standard language, their roles may be contested by those who feel disadvantaged by the arrangement, hence the public riots in Belgium in the 1960s and more recently, over the roles of French and Flemish in Brussels, and in the Philippines in the 1990s over the use of English and Tagalog in education (Thompson, 2003). Although tensions over the functions of the standard language do not often hit the headlines, they nevertheless underlie the complex challenges faced by language planners for minority languages, as we have seen with Basque, Ewe and Macedonian. By contrast, the most prominent language concern of major world languages such as English, French, Chinese and Russian is with resolving issues of acceptability or correctness of variant forms in the standard language, i.e. ‘codification of form’ in Haugen’s ([1966] 1972) matrix for the development of a standard language. For three of the four languages

362

Epilogue

mentioned (Chinese, Russian and French), the chief focus of activity in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has been to regulate the role of foreign loanwords in general use – and to replace them with substitutes constructed out of linguistic material from within the standard language. Contemporary Chinese language authorities are especially concerned with constructing Chinese equivalents for Western terms in science and technology, while the Russian government focuses on foreign loanwords in general which can be replaced by commonly used Russian analogues (Chapter 18, by Arto Mustajoki). The French language enrichment strategy (Chapter 17, by Danielle Candel), associated with the Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France (set up in 1996), aims to introduce new Frenchbased scientific terms into the language as substitutes for borrowed English terms. The French objective here and elsewhere is to control the lexical inventory of standard French (to proscribe loanwords, especially from English), and to prescribe pure French substitutes. Interestingly, the French enrichment process is focused on scientific terminology, whereas there are numerous loanwords from English in the domain of sport. We might surmise that it is easier to manage and edit scientific writing according to set standards, than to influence spoken commentaries on sport. Concerns about language form are centre stage for English, and the focus is often on the grammatical or stylistic acceptability of words with colloquial associations. This is well illustrated in the discussions of prescriptive writing (Chapters 14 and 15, by Matthijs Smits and Don Chapman, respectively), among the words and expressions under the spotlight. In terms of Fowler’s Modern English Usage (1926), such words would perhaps have been judged ‘vulgar’ – in its archaic and etymological sense of being associated with popular rather than cultivated usage; see the entry on vulgarisation (Fowler, 1926: 698), which was kept with additional examples in Gowers’s (1965: 684−685) second edition. Yet prescriptive objections to informal usage seem rather to be edged with the modern sense of vulgar, as lacking good taste or bordering on obscenity. This hardens the prescriptive stance against informal language, and feeds what Cameron (1995) called ‘moral panic’ about correct language. Burchfield taps into the general linguistic anxiety in his re-edited version of Fowler’s Modern English Usage (1996) in his comment on alright, entered under all right: ‘The … inability to see that there is anything wrong with alright, reveals one’s background, upbringing, education, etc., perhaps as much as any word in the language’ (Burchfield, 1996: 43). The conservative view of English language education and the need to focus on correct usage is unfortunately propagated by the British media, along with negatively pitched articles about the numerous languages other than English spoken by school students and the population at large (Chapter 16, by Martin Gill). It suggests how easily the public nerve is tested by sensational treatment of the multilingual realities in the community, as if it confirms the downgrading and degradation of standard English.

On Establishing the Standard Language – and Language Standards

363

Intense concern with informal and non-standard aspects of the language is not an exclusively English phenomenon. Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has passed new laws (2003) against ‘bad language’, a cover term for the ‘substandard’, ‘contemptuous’ or ‘abusive’ words and expressions (Chapter 18, by Arto Mustajoki). Since then, there has been a groundswell of interest in correct Russian, with public grammar and spelling competitions (Wall Street Journal, 8 July 2015). The Russian equivalent of ‘grammar Nazi’, used to refer to the pedantic intent on correcting another person’s speech, also had some currency until quashed by those more attentive to its political connotations. There, as in Britain, details of the standard language can be heavily contested by those who see themselves as maintaining language standards.

The Ideology of the Standard Language Ideological notions of the standard language are increasingly recognised as a factor in language planning, the construction of new standard languages and interventions aimed at standardising the form of existing standard languages. Historical examples of idealised norms of a putative standard variety can be seen in the case of northern and southern Dutch (Chapter 9, by Gijsbert Rutten and Rik Vosters) and Icelandic (Chapter 8, by Heimir van der Feest Viðarsson), and there are insights into the current example of Lithuanian (Chapter 19, by Loreta Vaicekauskienė). The latter shows how the competing ideologies of Lithuanian nationalism and Russian linguistic purism bring different aspirations to bear on the construction of the standard. In Britain, meanwhile, the ideology of the standard is typically embedded in moves to standardise irregularities in its formal elements. This ideology reflects underlying assumptions about the standard language (Armstrong & Mackenzie, 2012; see also Chapter 1, by Carol Percy and Ingrid TiekenBoon van Ostade), particularly their normativity ‘disguised as common sense’, and the putative invariance of the standard, so that interventions designed to maintain that invariance and reduce language variability can be justified in the name of standardisation. Normative assumptions about the standard language are convenient wherever it is the focus of education (Chapter 5), and other languageusing industries, such as editing and publishing (Cameron, 1995). Unfortunately, these assumptions are often sustained with appeals to anonymous language ‘traditions’. They tend to disregard or discount newer usages which are widespread in the community, doing disservice to English language teaching for first and second language learners, and to the communication industries at large. The normative usage guide does not address the professional concerns of teachers, editors, publicists, journalists or content developers for websites when they encounter new or divergent expressions. Instead, it presents the standard language as a

364

Epilogue

perfectly closed entity, like the metric standards of length and mass, not as a dynamic system that varies in actual usage. It must be said that the word standard as noun or attributive presents ambiguity, as documented in English dictionary definitions. It may, as with metric standards, represent a quantity or quality which is a benchmark, i.e. normal, regular and acceptable. But the word can also project an aspirational grade or level of excellence, in English expressions like set the standard for and setting language standards. Both the regular and aspirational kinds of meaning were associated with a standard language in Smakman’s (2012) sociolinguistic survey of more than 1000 non-linguists in seven countries, though unevenly distributed among them. In Europe (including England, Flanders, The Netherlands and Poland), the results were skewed towards the aspirational (‘exclusive’) meaning, whereas in Japan and New Zealand the skewing was towards the regular or (‘inclusive’) view of the standard language. Smakman’s finding for New Zealand compares interestingly with the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary’s (2005) definition of Standard English as ‘conforming to established educated usage’, so that the dictionary makes it aspirational and exclusive rather than inclusive, at least for those without access to higher education. The ambiguity of the word standard, and the variable meaning it gives to the phrase standard language for different populations and national languages leaves it open to interpretation: as a form of language which is idealised, or one which is accessible and widely used. In the ideology of the standard, variable language forms are to be contained and artificially controlled in the name of standardisation. In Haugen’s ([1966] 1972) model of standard language development, the standard language emerges by natural selection and standardisation of regional dialects, as its functions are extended and elaborated.

Standard Language and the Norms of Usage Amid discussions of the standard language, the question of whether it refers to written or spoken usage – or both – is not often addressed. The importance of orthography is discussed in general in Chapter 3 by Florian Coulmas, and is certainly an important aspect of language management in multi-ethnic areas of Asia, e.g. for the Ouigar people in western China. In some countries, priority is given to developing a standard spoken language, as for Chinese (Chapter 4, by Henning Klöter), and Basque (Chapter 22). The challenges are enormous when the Basque speaker’s other language may be French or Spanish, with their different phonemic and intonational systems. Yet, many discussions of the standard language do not identify their subject as being either the written or spoken language – either because the written form is actually the one under consideration, or because the two are supposedly identical.

On Establishing the Standard Language – and Language Standards

365

In the past, the unspoken focus on written language was not unreasonable, since evidence of the norms of usage could only be found in written texts, as used by Johnson and the OED. Even then, they were dependent on human intermediaries/readers of selected texts, rather than notional common usage. In hindsight, biases are visible among the texts used for citational purposes in the OED (Willinsky, 1994). They are typically literary rather than mass communication texts, thus exemplifying creative rather than informative styles in the spectrum of written language. Distinctions between written and spoken usage are rarely indicated in abridged dictionaries, with the noteworthy exceptions of some designed for foreign learners. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995) and the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1995) pioneered the use of statistical indicators to show the relative frequencies of selected words in spoken and written usage, based on their large corpora of digitised contemporary texts. Such information supports an evidence-based approach to what counts as the core of standard spoken and written English, without resorting to normative or subjective assumptions as to what is acceptable. The norms of English usage are now describable on the basis of corpus evidence of actual usage, and can be differentiated as appropriate for spoken and written discourse in language teaching, editing and publishing (Biber et al., 1999). Having an evidential base for describing the standard language is crucial for diffusing unnecessary contestation about its range and the acceptability of variant forms (see Chapter 13, by Mark Kaunisto, as well as Chapter 14). Having comparable corpora for a pluricentric language, as for English with the ICE-corpora and the GloWbE corpus for postcolonial varieties of English, we can readily compare the variability of usage among them. This does suggest that one of the most useful functions for a national language authority is to continuously research the norms of usage, so that its recommendations are in line with usage, rather than ‘norms’ created top-down. It remains to be seen whether other major languages such as French and Chinese will turn to the very large electronic corpora of their respective languages (spoken and written) when formulating the details of their respective standard languages, or whether they will continue to rely on the authority of those managing their national language policies.

References Armstrong, N. and Mackenzie, I. (2012) Standardization, Ideology and Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Biber, D., Leech, G., Johansson, S., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Burchfield, R. (1996) The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Buschfeld, S., Hoffmann, T., Hüber, M. and Kautsch, A. (2014) The Evolution of Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cameron, D. (1995) Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.

366

Epilogue

Chesterfield, 4th Earl of (Philip Stanhope) Works of Lord Chesterfield including Letters to his Son (1834). New York, Harper & Brothers. See https://books.google.com.au/ books?id=g-k_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PR51&lpg=PR51&dq (accessed 15 June 2016). Clyne, M. (1992) Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1995) (2nd edn). Glasgow: Harper Collins. European Charter 1992. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Charter_for_ Regional_or_Minority_Languages (accessed February 2016). Fowler, H. (1926) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Goosse, A. ([121986] 131993) Le Bon Usage. Grammaire Française. Paris/Louvain-la-Neuve: Editions Ducolot. Gowers, E. (1965) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (2nd edn). Oxford: Clarendon Press Green, J., Lo Bianco, J. and Wyn, J. (2011) Discourses in interaction: The intersection of literacy and health research internationally. Literacy and Numeracy Studies 15 (2), 19−37. Grevisse, M. (1936) Le Bon Usage. Paris, Ducolot. Haugen, E ([1966] 1972) Language, dialect, nation. In J. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics (pp. 97−111). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Johnson, S. ([1787] 1825) Lives of the Poets. Volume 1 online at Project Gutenberg. See http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5098 (accessed February 2016). Kruger, H. (2009) Language-in-education policy, publishing and the translation of children’s books in South Africa. Perspectives in Translatology 17 (1), 105−136. Le Grand Robert de la Langue Française (1985−1992) (2nd edn), Edited by A Rey. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert. Lo Bianco, J. (2010) The importance of language policies and multilingualism for cultural diversity. International Social Science Journal 61 (199), 37−67. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995) (3rd edn). London: Longman. McCauley, T. ([1835] 1920) Minute upon Indian Education. In H. Sharp (ed.) Selections from Educational Records, Part I (1781−1839). Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing. Murray, J. (1911) Lectures 1, 2 and 5 to Oxford School of English. Unpublished lectures delivered to the University of Oxford School of English (MP Box 27). New Zealand Oxford Dictionary (2005), edited by T. Deverson and G. Kennedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ogilvie, S. (2013) Words of the World: A Global History of the Oxford Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters, P. (2012) Standard British English. In A. Bergs and L. Brinton (eds) Historical Linguistics of English (HSK 34:1) (pp. 1879−1899). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Peters, P. (2016) Lexicography: The construction of dictionaries and thesauruses. In K. Allan (ed.) Routledge Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 187−204). London: Routledge. Schneider, E. (2007) Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smakman, D. (2012) The definition of the standard language: A survey in seven countries. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 218, 25−58. Thompson, R (2003) Filipino English and Taglish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wall Street Journal (2015) See http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-russia-crackdown-spellstrouble-for-grammar-nazis-1433500290 (accessed 15 June 2016). Willinsky, J. (1994) Empire of Words: The Reign of the OED. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Index Abu-Haidar, Farida, 34 Académie française and Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France, 277 establishment, 106–107 function and influence, 106, 116 lexicographical work, 108–109, 273, 274 as model for other language academies, 106 and terminology committees, 13, 276, 281 website features, 114, 279 Accademia della Crusca, 107 accent, as sociolinguistic marker, 91, 121. See also pronunciation; spoken language Accidence will Happen (Kamm), 115 Achebe, Chinua, 29 Addison, Joseph, 107 Africa dialect levelling in, 73 emigrants to Britain from, 260 English as an official language in, 27 literature in English from, 29 prescriptivism in, 5, 83–84 standardisation of languages in, 24 Agha, Asif, 122, 126, 133 Akan languages, 75, 76, 78 Akpafu, 83 Alaska, 298 Álava/Araba, 343 Albanian, 15, 18, 323, 324, 325–326, 360 Alberdi, Andres, 346 Allan, Keith, 72, 74 Allerhand Sprachdummheiten (Wustmann), 171–174, 175, 176, 177–178 Allsopp, Richard, 28 All the Year Round (journal), 126, 127, 133n1 Ameka, Felix K., 5, 71–87, 360 American English compared with British English, 122, 222, 233

367

corpora and databases of, 10, 11, 204, 225–226 Dickens’s representations of, 7, 122, 123, 124, 130 and evolutionary model of standardisation, 356 influence on British English, 129, 130 influence on French, 276, 277, 281, 282, 286n5 political correctness in, 195 usage guides, 9 American Heritage Dictionary, 224 American National Corpus (ANC), 187, 199n2 American Notes (Dickens), 124 Amis, Kingsley, 114 Ammon, Hermann, 177 Anglo-Norman, 123 Anlo dialect, 76, 77, 78, 85n3 Anne, Queen of Great Britain, 107, 110 Apostrophe Protection Society, 115 Arabic in British schools, 260 language change in, 51 loanwords in, 49 as a pluricentric language, 356 prestigious forms of, 34 spoken vs. written, 31, 32, 290 Arabic script as cosmopolitan and demotic, 50–51 and dictionaries, 46 and diglossia, 53 numerals, 50 organisation, 4, 42, 43 and orthography, 47 representation of loanwords, 49 Árnason, Kristján, 165 Arutiunova, N.D., 291 Auer, Peter, 24 Auslandgermanistik, 6, 88–100 Australia, 30, 129, 358 Australian English, 129, 356 Austria, 305 Ayres-Bennett, Wendy, 6, 105–120, 358

368

Index

Baghdad, 34 Bailey, Richard W., 132 Baker, Robert, 112–113 Bakhtin, Mikhail, 123 Balalovska, Kristina, 321–322 Balzac, Jean Louis Guez de, 108 Bangladesh, 29 Banhold, Dominik, 9, 168–181 Barafin, Pierre, 141 Barasa, Sandra Nekesa, 3–4, 17, 23–38, 355 Barros, Rita Queiroz de, 7, 121–136 Bas-Lauriol law (1975), 109, 273 Basovskaja, E.N., 314n5 Basque, 342–353 in adjacent situations of diglossia, 360 codification, 2 in France, 2, 352n1, 360 history of standardisation, 1, 342 and new media, 12 planning for, 361 pronunciation, 15, 16, 343–344 as a second language, 343, 344, 345, 346, 352, 353n5 Basque Academy, 18, 342, 347, 349, 352, 360 Basque Country, 343, 352n1 Bassiouney, Reem, 34 BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) on Manx revival, 259 on Middlesbrough vernacular, 265 on non-English-speaking immigrants, 261–263 readers’ comments on, 257 as semi-official language academy, 7 on 21st century English, 266 usage manuals, 114, 115 Belarus, 14, 298, 299 Belarusian, 290, 298 Belgium, 25, 138, 305, 359, 361 Bellum Grammaticale (Anon.), 110 Benin, 76 Bernharðsson, Haraldur, 162 Bernstein, Theodore M., 204, 206 Berson, Joel S., 133n4 Bex, Tony, 24 Bible, 159, 161, 333 bilingualism among Basque speakers, 16, 344, 348, 350, 351, 353n6 in British schools, 260 and code-switching, 32 in Macedonia, 324

Billig, Michael, 257 Bizkaia, 343 Bladuche-Delage, Alain, 113 Blake, N.F., 123 Bleak House (Dickens), 124 Bliznakovski, Jovan, 323, 325 Blom, Jan Petter, 32 BNC (British National Corpus), 10, 187, 199n2, 203, 204, 207–210, 211 Bochnakowa, Anna, 113 Böðvarsson, Árni, 156 Bojunga, Klaudius, 177 Boland, John, 196 Le Bon Usage (Grevisse and Goosse), 109, 359 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 360 Bouhours, Dominique, 111 Bourdieu, Pierre, 30, 33, 244 Brazil, 298 Breton, 360 Brians, Paul, 206 Brightland, John, 110 British Broadcasting Corporation. See BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) British English, 122, 222, 233, 234, 356 British National Corpus (BNC), 10, 187, 199n2, 203, 204, 207–210, 211 Brömse, Heinrich, 177 Brook, G.L., 133n3 Brunei, 34 Brunot, Ferdinand, 105 Brussels, 361 Bryants, Margaret M., 223 Bryson, Bill, 114 Bucharest, Treaty of, 319–320 Bulgaria, 15, 320, 327, 360 Bulletin of the Council for the Macedonian Language, 321 Bunscoill Ghaelgagh, 259 Burchfield, Robert. See also New Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Burchfield) on alright, 362 birthplace and education, 10 characterisations of, 10, 191–193, 195, 196, 198 as a descriptivist linguist, 189, 190–191 as editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, 115, 186 publication of The Spoken Word, 115 Burmania proverbs, 335 Burridge, Kate, 72, 74 Buschmann-Göbels, Astrid, 110

Index

Busse, Ulrich, 185, 224, 225, 226–227, 233 Bybee, Joan L., 230 Cabré, M. Teresa, 285 Cambridge Guide to English Usage (Peters), 114, 202, 204, 206, 210, 211 Cambridge International Corpus, 204 Cameron, David, 255, 256, 263 Cameron, Deborah, 72, 78, 240, 362 Cameroon, 5, 84 Canada, 276, 359 Candel, Danielle, 12–13, 273–287, 362 Cannaert, Joseph Bernard, 8, 139–140, 143–149 Canterbury Tales (Chaucer), 123 ‘Canton-English’, 7, 130 Cantonese, 63 Caribbean English, 27–28, 31 Caron, Philippe, 108 Carroll, Lewis, 58 Carroll, Susanne, 89 CASS (Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), 66 Cassidy, Frederic G., 27 CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference), 90–91 Cellard, Jacques, 113 Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), 274, 276 Cerquiglini, Bernard, 112, 114 Chángzhōu, 58 Chao Yuen Ren, 4–5, 57–60, 68 Chapelain, Jean, 108 Chapman, Don, 11–12, 204–205, 238–252, 362 Chapman, Raymond, 123 Charles I, King of England, 6 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 123 Cheshire, Jenny, 224, 225, 230 Chesterfield, Philip Stanhope, Earl of, 357–358 children. See also education of immigrants to Britain, 260–261 and official norms, 289 overgeneralisation of tense forms, 229 and prosodic structure, 346 as site of prescriptive activity, 5, 77–78 as speakers of an endangered language, 259–260, 267 as speakers of a non-standard dialect, 264–267 spelling competitions for, 115 teaching of writing to, 39–40

369

China, 5, 48, 57, 64, 67, 290 China Central Television, 66–67 China Youth Daily (newspaper), 67 Chinese Beijing dialect, 4–5, 60, 61, 62 codification of pronunciation in, 57, 59–68 corpora of, 365 dictionaries, 42, 46, 57, 59, 61, 64–67, 68 diglossia in, 290 electronic communications and, 2, 48 as a foreign language, 64 language change in, 4 loanwords in, 4, 362 Min dialect, 54n4 as a pluricentric language, 5, 64, 356 Putonghua, 62–63 spoken vs. written, 31–32 standardisation of, 4–5, 57–68 Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), 66 Chinese script as cosmopolitan and elitist, 50–51 and diglossia, 53 in Japanese writing system, 48 in Korean writing system, 48–49 and lexicography, 42, 46 numerals, 50 organisation of, 4, 42, 43 and orthography, 48 reform of, 48, 62 representation of loanwords, 49 Chuang Tzu, 85n1 Church Slavonic, 290, 291 Clarendon Press, 9 CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), 97–98, 100 Clyne, Michael G., 64, 358 CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique), 274, 276 COCA. See Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) code-mixing, 78, 80, 85 code-switching attitudes towards, 74 as a consequence of multilingual contexts, 85 in historical texts, 123 markedness model of, 33 in postcolonial media, 29 serving functions of a standard, 3, 32–33

370

Index

COHA (Corpus of Historical American English), 11, 226, 227–228, 231, 232, 233, 234–235 Collinot, André, 275 Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1995), 365 colloquial speech. See also spoken language dialectal forms in, 16, 18, 344, 347 foreign language learners and, 99, 100 in lexicography, 65, 132, 292 as non-standard, 6, 73–74 in personal letters, 162 prescription against, 76–77, 264–267, 362 as prestigious form, 34 in the public domain, 288, 299 as standard variety, 88, 93–94 colonialism and choice of standard language, 3, 27–28, 34 and Haugen’s model of standardisation, 24, 28 influence on British English, 129 and the need for an administrative standard, 358 and new vocabulary, 358–359 and stigmatisation of vernaculars, 5, 83 Commission for the Unification of the National Language (China), 61 Commission génerale de terminologie et de néologie, 274, 275–276, 280–282, 283–284, 285n1 Commissions spécialisées de terminologie et de néologie, 273, 275–276, 280–282, 283–284, 285n1 Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), 90–91 comparative philology, 128 competence, linguistic vs. sociolinguistic, 90–91 The Complete Plain Words (Gowers), 114 Concentric Circle model (Kachru), 29 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), 97–98, 100 Corneille, Pierre, 109 corpora and databases. See also Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) of American English, 10, 11, 187, 199n2 of British English, 10, 187, 199n2

and critical discourse analysis, 186–187 of Dickens’s journals, 126–127 frequency data in, 170, 174, 208–210, 227–228, 231–33, 234–235 of German, 170–171, 175–176, 179n4 of Icelandic newspapers, 8, 152, 159–161 investigating prescriptivism through, 17, 19 of legal English, 11, 203 in lexicography, 365 of Lithuanian, 304 of official Dutch prose, 8, 143–147 of officially approved French terminology, 276 of private letters in Icelandic, 153, 162–164, 165 search engines, 226 of student essays in Icelandic, 161–162 and usage guides, 10–11, 202–220, 365 of World English, 212 Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) compared with usage guides, 10, 203, 207–210 data on compulsive/compulsory, 211 data on different from/than, 234–235 data on hopefully, 227–228, 236 data on sneaked/snuck, 231, 232, 233 as a ‘monitor’ corpus, 225–226 used in conjunction with COHA, 11 Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE), 212, 365 Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), 11, 226, 227–228, 231, 232, 233, 234–235 Couldry, Nick, 268 Coulmas, Florian, 4, 24, 39–56, 364 Council for the Macedonian Language, 320–321 Coupland, Nikolas, 289 Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar (Priestley), 223 creoles, 28 critical discourse analysis, 186 Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (Walker), 121, 128 Croatian, 19 Crowley, Tony, 31 Crystal, David, 206, 210 Current American Usage (Bryant), 223 Curzan, Anne, 185

Index

Cyril, Saint, 292, 293 Cyrillic script, 15, 292–293, 306, 320, 323, 328 Czech, 260, 305 Dagestan, 14, 299 Dahl, Vladimir, 292, 359 Daily Express (newspaper), 257, 263, 265, 269n3 Daily Mail (newspaper), 257, 260–261, 262 Dàlián, 63 Daneš, František, 168 Danish, 8, 153, 155, 156, 158, 162, 165 Dante Alighieri, 39 Dari, 260 Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod (Sick), 92–93 Dauzat, Albert, 113 David Copperfield, 123 Davidson, Mark, 206 Davies, Mark, 207, 212, 225 DeCamp, David, 28 Décret Juppé (1996), 273 Défense de la langue française (organisation), 113 Defoe, Daniel, 107 Defrenne, Joseph, 141 Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France (DGLFLF), 12–13, 109–110, 274, 277, 282, 283–284, 362 democracy and language change, 296 and minority languages, 325, 342–343, 347 and nationalist language reform, 58 and new media, 294 and official norms, 289, 299, 312, 313, 314, 358 descriptivism. See also prescriptivism associated metalanguage, 175–176, 178 frequency data and, 170 in lexicography, 65 relation to prescriptivism, 169, 275 in usage guides, 173, 186, 188, 190, 192, 197 Deumert, Andrea, 24, 155, 318 Devanāgarī script as cosmopolitan and elitist, 50–51 difficulty and complexity, 53 and language change, 51–53 and lexicography, 46–47 organisation of, 4, 44, 45

371

and orthography, 48 representation of loanwords, 50 and Southeast Asian scripts, 54n3 De Vulgari Eloquentia (Dante), 39 DGLFLF (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France), 12–13, 109–110, 274, 277, 282, 283–284, 362 dialects as a component of sociolinguistic competence, 91 defined, 89 and distancing, 338, 345 in Haugen’s model of standardisation, 364 levelling of, 73–74, 93, 347 in lexicography, 292, 331 past participle and preterite verbs in, 229 and social status, 121 in standardisation of pronunciation, 343–353 stigmatisation in the classroom, 264–267 and stress patterns, 314n2 in usage guides, 222 and written standard language, 173 Dickens, Charles, 7, 121–133 Dickens Journals Online (corpus), 126 Les Dicos d’or (spelling competition), 114 Dictionaire universel (Furetière), 108 dictionaries. See also Oxford English Dictionary (OED); usage guides; individual languages headword selection, 65–67, 292 inclusion of foreign words in, 358–359 and language change, 223 and norms, 290, 311 privately sponsored, 108 pronouncing, 32, 60, 61, 68, 121, 128 in the spread of colonialism, 27 state-sponsored or -sanctioned, 13, 57, 68, 108, 296–297 variant forms in, 223–288, 336–337 and writing systems, 4, 46–47 Dictionary of Modern American Usage (Garner), 9, 10–11, 17, 202, 203–204. See also Garner, Bryan Dictionary of Modern Chinese (1978), 64–67, 68 Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Fowler), 185–199. See also Burchfield, Robert; Fowler, H.W.;

372

Index

New Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Burchfield) editions, 185 influence and legacy, 190, 196, 198, 204, 224 market for, 193 need for updating, 193, 194, 197 in study of entry selection, 206, 209, 210 use of illustrative quotations, 203 on ‘vulgarisation’, 362 Dictionary of National Pronunciation (1919), 60, 61 Dictionary of the English Language (Johnson), 112, 121, 357–358 Dictionnaire de l’Académie, 273, 274–275, 279–280, 281, 282, 284, 359 Dictionnaire françois (Richelet), 108 diglossia in Ghana, 76 and separation of standard language functions, 3 and the standardisation process, 23–24, 290 and writing systems, 4, 53–54 Dire, Ne pas dire (web series), 114 discourse, defined, 186 Dissertation on the Causes of the Difficulties [...] in Learning the English Tongue (Sheridan), 121 Divina Commedia (Dante), 39 Dombey and Son (Dickens), 124–125 Donegan, Patricia, 346 Drew, John, 126 ‘Drinkers Dictionary’ (attr. Franklin), 133n4 Druon, Maurice, 113, 278, 281 Dryden, John, 107 Duijff, Pieter, 16, 331–341 Dutch, 137–149 in Belgium vs. The Netherlands, 49 codification of, 138–140 and Flemish, 141 and Frisian, 16, 333, 335, 338 loanwords to other languages, 294, 335, 339 northern vs. southern varieties, 7–8, 141–142, 143–149, 363 orthography, 137, 142, 144, 331 pronunciation guides for, 32 as West Germanic language, 331 East Africa, 26 East Anglian dialect, 123–124

Eastern Daily Press (newspaper), 115 East Slavonic, 290 Easy English Grammar (Meiklejohn), 128 Ebbitt, David R., 243 Ebbitt, Wilma R., 243 The Economist (journal), 190, 199 Edmondson, Willis J., 97 education. See also children; foreign language learners and codification of the vernacular, 7 and dissemination of standards, 62, 155, 157–158, 161–162 as important site for prescription, 18, 40, 248, 363–364 and language use at home, 82–83 in minority languages, 324, 333, 334, 337, 361 and nationalist prescriptivism, 8–9, 307–308 in postcolonial, multilingual settings, 77–78, 83–85, 361 school grammars, 142, 158, 170–171, 174–175, 176–178 and stigmatisation of non-standard forms, 264–267, 268 writing in, 40, 41 Egypt, 34 Ehala, Martin, 165n2 Elbow, Peter, 73 Elements of Style (Strunk and White), 222 Ellis, Rod, 90, 99 Elspaß, Stephan, 72, 73, 92, 159, 162 Elster, Charles Harrington, 224 Engel, Eduard, 171–172, 173–174, 175, 176, 177, 178 England, 18, 107–108, 115, 116, 257, 261, 357–358. See also United Kingdom English. See also American English; Standard English; World English and Arabic, 49 ‘complaint tradition’, 114–115 dictionaries, 108, 365 (see also Oxford English Dictionary (OED)) as a foreign language, 92, 325 foreign or classical loanwords in, 49, 129 grammars, 108, 110–111 historiography of, 128–129 history of prescriptivism in, 6–7, 105–117 history of standardisation, 1 loanwords to French, 12–13, 109, 114, 274–275, 276, 278–279, 282–283

Index

loanwords to other languages, 12–13, 294–295 orthography, 362 as a pluricentric language, 64, 358 in postcolonial settings, 5, 27–29, 75, 82–84, 361 pronunciation guides for, 32, 121, 128, 130–131 as a second language, 212, 260, 261, 263 as West Germanic language, 331 English Grammar Adapted to Different Classes of Learners (Murray), 125 English Grammar for the Natives (Ritchie), 116 English Past and Present (Trench), 128 Epkema, Epko, 332 erasure, concept of, 154 Ervin-Tripp, Susan M., 32 Essegbey, James, 76, 79 Estonia, 14, 298, 306 Estonian, 165n2 Ethnologue, 5, 25, 74 Euromosaic studies, 327 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, 15, 18, 327, 359–360 European Union, 15, 322, 327 Euskaltzaindia, 18, 342, 347, 349, 352, 360 Euskara Batuaren Ahoskera Zaindua, 343 Ewe, 5, 74, 75, 76, 360, 361 Ezard, John, 192 Factiva, 186 Fagyal, Zsuzsanna, 275 Falck, A.R., 140 Faroese, 305 Les fautes de français? Plus jamais! (Lepers), 112 Federation Council (Russia), 296 Ferguson, Susan L., 124 Le Figaro (newspaper), 113 Finegan, Edward, 33, 192 Finland, 305 Finnish, 305 Fisher, John H., 25 Fishman, Joshua A., 334 Fjölnir (journal), 156 Flanders, 25, 140, 364 Flemish, 141, 305, 361 Florstedt, Friedrich, 177 folk linguistics. See also linguists expressed in the media, 13, 18, 185, 256–257, 362

373

and lexicography, 46, 109 notion of language as immutable, 12, 18, 39 organisations for, 113–114 prescriptive traditions as, 240 and scholarly linguistics, 190–196, 258–259, 267, 305 view of standard language, 25, 30, 364 views of state-sanctioned prescriptivism, 5, 66–67, 116, 313 Follett, Wilson, 204 foreign language learners. See also education; second language learners attitudes to variation and error, 2, 6, 17, 94 difficulty with register, 89–90 and linguistic vs. sociolinguistic competence, 90, 97–99, 100 native speakers as target norm for, 91–93 perceptions of the linguistic norm, 88–89, 91, 94–97, 98 forensic linguistics, 298 Fowler, Francis, 9 Fowler, H.W. See also Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Fowler) as an institution, 185, 198 characterisations of, 190, 194, 197 compared with Burchfield, 189–190, 191 occupation as schoolmaster, 114 and Oxford University Press, 9, 10, 17 prescriptivist metalanguage, 192 Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (2015), 18 Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Gowers), 185, 197, 362 France. See also colonialism Basque speakers in, 2, 352n1, 360 founding of language academy, 106–107, 116n3 immigrants in, 298 language associations, 109–110, 113–114 and The Netherlands, 138 prescriptivism in the media of, 113–114 status of Breton in, 360 terminology commissions, 109, 273– 274, 275–277, 280–282, 283–284 FranceTerme (website), 277, 281 Franco, Francisco, 342 François I, King of France, 273

374

Index

Franklin, Benjamin, 133n4 French, 273–286. See also Académie française; France Americanisms in, 276, 277, 281, 282, 286n5 Anglo-Norman, 123 and Arabic, 49 and Basque, 16, 344, 345, 346, 353n6, 364 in Belgium, 359, 361 in British schools, 260 codification, 108–110 as a colonial language, 27 corpora of, 365 dictionaries of, 109, 273, 274–275, 278–284 English loanwords in, 12–13, 109, 114, 274–279, 282–283 history of prescriptivism in, 1, 6–7, 12–13, 105–117 laws protecting, 109–110, 116, 273, 280 loanwords to Russian, 294 in the Low Countries, 8, 138, 143, 148 orthography, 41 as a pluricentric language, 356, 359 preference for lexical innovation, 49 under pressure from English, 116 regional varieties of, 359 standardisation of, 106–107 French Academy. See Académie française Friðriksson, Halldór Kr., 157 Friedman, Victor A., 328 Friesch Woordenboek, 336, 338 Friesland, 16, 18, 331–332 Frisian, 331–339 dialects of, 16, 18, 334, 336, 337, 338 dictionaries of, 331, 332–333, 336–337 and Dutch, 331, 333, 335, 338, 339 historical background, 331–333 and new media, 12 orthography, 15, 16 standard word list, 337–339 Frisian Movement, 333 Fryske Akademy, 16, 18, 331, 337 De Fryske Boekstavering (1879), 336 Furetière, Antoine, 108 Gal, Susan, 152, 153–154, 165 Gaminde, Iñaki, 346 Garner, Bryan on different than/to, 233, 236

methodology and approach, 204, 206, 221–224 publisher, 9, 17 on reasons for using Standard English, 241 selection of items for inclusion, 207 on sentence adverb hopefully, 226, 228 on sneaked/snuck, 231, 233, 236 and the term SNOOT, 248 use of corpora, 10–11, 202, 203, 222 Garner’s Modern American Usage (2003), 203–204, 206, 207, 210, 211 Garner’s Modern American Usage (2009), 221–236 Gbe languages, 76 Gelbe, Theodor, 175 Gerhards, Theodor, 177 German, 88–100, 168–179 in British schools, 260 corpora and databases, 170–171, 175–176, 179n4 dialects, 73–74, 93, 173, 174, 176, 177 as a foreign language, 6, 88–100 influence on Estonian, 165n2 influence on Icelandic, 8, 155 in the Low Countries, 138 pronunciation, 353n9 school grammars, 170–171, 174–175, 176–178 standardisation of, 9, 168–170, 179n2 symbolic value, 169 Umgangsprache, 88, 93–94, 100 usage guides, 171–177 as West Germanic language, 331 Germany, 26, 72, 298 Ghana, 5, 29, 74–81 Ghanaian English, 74, 85n2 Ghana-Togo mountain languages, 76, 82 Gildon, Charles, 110 Gill, Martin, 12, 255–272, 362 Gipuzkoa, 343 Gíslason, Konráð, 156, 157, 162 Gjurkova, Aleksandra, 15, 318–330 Gladstone Primary School (Peterborough), 260–261 Glagolitic alphabet, 292 GloWbE (Global Web-based English) corpus, 212, 365 Golev, Nikolai, 296 Goody, Jack, 53 Goosse, André, 109, 359 Gowers, Ernest, 114, 185, 191, 197, 362

Index

La grammaire, c’est pas de la tarte! (Houdart and Prioul), 112 Grammar of Spoken Chinese (Chao), 57, 58 Grammatica Russica (Ludolf), 291 Grammatiki slavenskia pravilnoe sintagma (Smotritsky), 291 Le Grand Robert, 359 Greece, 15, 320, 327, 360 Greek, 49, 54 Greenbaum, Sidney, 114 Greenwood, James, 110 Gregory, Michael, 89 Grevisse, Maurice, 109, 112 Grot, Jakov, 293 Gruevska-Madjoska, Simona, 324 Guǎngdōng Province, 63 Guǎngzhōu, 63 The Guardian (newspaper), 115, 198, 257 Guerini, Federica, 75 Gujarati, 260 Gumperz, John J., 32 Gunnarsson, S., 158 Guóyīn chángyòng zìhuì (1932), 60 Guóyīn zìdiǎn (1919), 60, 61 Gutes Deutsch (Engel), 171–172, 173–174, 175, 176, 177, 178 Hakala, Taryn Siobhan, 135 Halliday, M.A.K., 89 Hangul Chinese characters in, 48–49, 50 and lexicography, 47 organisation of, 4, 45 as vernacular and demotic, 50–51, 54n5 Harper’s Weekly (journal), 124 Harvard University, 59 Haugen, Einar. See also standardisation absence of prescription stage in model, 3, 353n13 on the features of a ‘complete language’, 346 four stages of standardisation, 23, 40, 305–306, 337, 351, 361, 364 on Icelandic, 154, 155 inapplicability of model to colonised countries, 24, 28 on ‘influential groups’, 342 and Prague Linguistic Circle, 310 Hausa, 75 Hausmann, F.J., 278 Haviland, John, 81 Heffer, Simon, 114, 115

375

Heller, Louis G., 223 Helmsdörfer, Adolf, 177 Heycock, Caroline, 155, 156, 158, 159 Heyse, J.C.A., 172 Hindi, 27, 35, 44, 48 Hitchings, Henry, 105, 115 Hoffa, Anna, 177 Hogg, Richard M., 224, 225, 229, 230 Hong Kong, 34, 48, 63 Horslund, C. Søballe, 224, 230 Houdart, Olivier, 112 House, Juliane, 97 Household Narrative (journal), 126 Household Words (journal), 126, 127 Howard, Godfrey, 206 Hualde, José Ignacio, 346 HUGE (Hyper Usage Guided English database), 114 Hui Tzu (Huizi), 85n1 Human Development Index (HDI), 25 human rights, 326 Iartseva, V.N., 291 ICE-corpora (International Corpus of English), 365 Iceland, 303 Icelandic, 152–165 corpora of, 152, 153, 157–158, 159 nationalism in the standardisation of, 8, 154, 165, 305, 363 iconicity, concept of, 153–154 ICT. See information and communications technology Iets over de Hollandsche tael (Cannaert), 139–140, 145 immigration, 12, 18, 255–256, 260–264, 360 The Independent (newspaper), 257, 258, 267 India diglossia in, 53 emigrants to Britain from, 260 English as medium of education in, 358 linguistic diversity in, 25, 47 linguistic prestige in, 34, 35 national unity through linguistic policy in, 31 nativised standard English in, 29 official languages, 27, 35 speech vs. writing in, 32, 51 Indic scripts, 41, 54n3 Indo-European, 291

376

Index

Industrial Revolution, 111 information and communications technology. See also media effects on usage, 2, 90, 293–294, 299 and foreign language learning, 90, 96, 99 and language ideology, 12 and language standardisation in India, 47 and orthography, 48 International Corpus of English (ICEcorpora), 365 Iran, 260 Iraq, 34 Ireland, 357 Irvine, Judith T., 152, 153–154, 165 Íslenzk málmyndalýsíng (Friðriksson), 157 Íslenzk málsgreinafræði (Jónsson), 157 Italian, 39, 41, 54 Italy, 39, 107 Jackson, Stewart, 261 Jamaica, 27–28 Jamaican English, 27–28, 31 James II, King of England, 6 Japan, 25, 53, 59, 364 Japanese, 4, 46, 53, 54. See also Kana script Japicx, Gysbert, 332, 335, 336, 339 jargon, 116, 131–132, 148, 238, 346 Jenkins, Simon, 240 Jiāng Lánshēng, 66 Johnson, Samuel, 112, 121, 357–358, 365 Jónasson, Jónas, 158 Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli, 162 Joseph, John Earl, 242, 334 Journal officiel de la République française, 13, 109, 277, 280, 282 JSTOR, 186 Juppé, Alain, 275 Kachru, Braj B., 27, 28–29 Kamm, Oliver, 115 Kana script and lexicography, 46 organisation, 4, 42–44 and orthography, 48 representation of loanwords, 49–50, 54n5 as vernacular and demotic, 50–51 Kāngxī Zìdiǎn (1716), 46 Kaunisto, Mark, 10–11, 202–220, 365 Kazakhstan, 14, 298

Kemble, John Mitchell, 128 Kenya, 26, 29, 33 Kenya Television Network (KTN), 29 The King’s English (Amis), 114 Klein, Wolf Peter, 168–169 Kloss, Heinz, 64, 318 Klöter, Henning, 4, 57–70, 364 Koneski, Blaže, 328 Korean, 4, 47, 48–49, 51–53. See also Hangul Kosovo Liberation Army, 321 Kristiansen, Tore, 289 Kumanovo, 321 Kusters, Christiaan Wouter, 157 Kwa languages, 74, 76 Laboratoire d’Histoire des théories linguistiques, 274 Labovian principle of norm awareness, 32 Laitin, David D., 76 Lanchester, John, 190 Langer, Nils, 168 language academies. See also Académie française for Basque, 18, 342, 347, 349, 352, 360 BBC as semi-official, 7, 115 for Frisian, 16, 18, 331, 337 in Italy, 107 proposed for England, 107–108, 110, 357 language associations, 113–114 language change foreign language learners’ perceptions of, 88, 94, 96, 99, 100 and language ideology, 154 in pedagogical texts, 172 scales of, 11, 223, 225, 228, 231 as sign of democratisation, 296 spoken language as indicator of, 51, 155, 232 writing systems and, 4, 51–53 language ideologies. See also nationalism artefactual, 73 and attitudes to prescriptivism, 71–72 in choice of non-standard dialect, 345–346 as a field of inquiry, 152 and language contact, 12–13 and language planning, 363 and lay vs. expert discourse, 258–259 and linguistic homogeneity, 92 and the media, 12, 126, 129, 130, 255–269

Index

and nationalism, 141–142, 158, 255–269 and norms, 289 romantic vs. rationalist, 304–305, 313–314 semiotic processes within, 153–154 transnational transmissions of, 59, 303 language legislation. See also language planning concerning Frisian, 333 in France, 109–110, 116, 273, 280 in Lithuania, 14, 306–307, 311, 312–313 in Macedonia, 319, 320, 321, 322–324, 325–326, 328 in Russia, 13, 18, 288, 296–298, 299 language planning. See also language legislation and dialectal variation, 346–351 Haugen’s approach to, 40, 306 and language ideologies, 363 for minority languages, 351, 352, 361 and prescriptivism, 57, 58, 61, 62, 67–68, 307 as a private activity, 137 as a scholarly discipline, 305, 310, 314 and standardisation, 19 and state unity, 140–141, 326–327, 328 status and corpus planning in, 318 in writing systems, 42 Language Policy (Spolsky), 320 language variation. See also dialects; sociolinguistics descriptivist commitment to, 9, 12, 14, 71, 84–85, 89 in education, 9, 78, 351, 352 effects of prescription on, 4, 5, 71, 73, 229, 230 foreign learners’ perceptions of, 6, 91, 94, 100, 213 as ‘internal differentiation’, 356 and language planning, 16, 351 in linguistic corpora, 162–164, 202 literary representations of, 7, 122–125 metalinguistic schematisations and labels for, 141, 171 and nationalist ideologies, 153, 154, 158 and pluricentricity, 5, 14 professional vs. public attitudes to, 2 within standardised languages, 32, 337, 344, 345, 356 as universal trait, 24, 71, 350

377

Lao, 54n3 Lærði skólinn (Iceland), 157, 161–162 Lass, Roger, 225, 229–230 Latin elite status, 4 in English vocabulary, 129 and German, 169 in handbook of Russian, 291 influence on Icelandic, 8, 155 in medieval manuscripts, 49, 123 Latvia, 14, 260, 298, 306 Le Bidois, Robert, 112, 114 legal linguistics, 298 Lehmann-Haupt, Christopher, 191 Leiden University, 114 Leith, D., 337 Leonard, Stephen Pax, 165 Lepers, Julien, 112 Levinson, Stephen C., 71 LexisNexis (corpus), 11, 203, 222 Lí Jǐnxī, 61 Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, 186 Linguistic Society of America, 58 linguists. See also folk linguistics; sociolinguistics commitment to descriptivism, 72, 190 as language ideologues, 304, 307, 308, 309–310, 312, 313 and language legislation, 297–298, 324 lay attitudes towards, 191, 192, 198, 222 organisations, 308 and popular perceptions of language, 12, 66–67, 93, 115, 257, 267, 269 reception of Burchfield’s edition of Fowler, 189, 190–191 and standardisation of pronunciation, 343 usage guides by, 112, 114 Lippi-Green, Rosina, 24 literary language in lexicography, 292, 365 and norms, 289, 290 in postcolonial settings, 29 as prescriptive exemplars, 7, 176 representations of language variation in, 122–125 and selection of standard dialect, 337 and the spread of prescriptivism, 125 three styles of, 290 Lithuania emigrants to Britain from, 260

378

Index

occupation by Soviet Union, 306 recent independence, 2, 14, 18, 306, 312 status of Russian in, 14, 298 Lithuanian, 303–314 electronic communications and, 2 influence of Soviet language ideology on, 303, 313–314, 356 laws protecting, 14, 306–307, 311, 312–313 stress patterns, 314n2 Lithuanian Communist Party, 309 Lithuanian Language Society, 308, 309 Little Dorrit (Dickens), 122 Li Wei, 63 Li Yuming, 63 loanwords. See also neologisms attitudes to, 2, 74, 78–79 as a consequence of multilingual contexts, 85 contrasted with native purity, 7 morphology, 295 preterite forms, 229 semantic and orthographic change in, 339 and writing systems, 4, 49–51 Lochner, Johannes, 175, 177 Lochtman, Katja, 6, 17, 88–102, 351 Lohrli, Anne, 126 Lomonosov, Mikhail, 290, 291 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995), 365 Longman Guide to English Usage (Greenbaum and Whitcut), 114 Louis XIII, King of France, 106, 273 Louis XIV, King of France, 106 Lowth, Robert, 72, 112, 121, 223, 230 Ludolf, Heinrich, 291 Luganda, 27 Lunt, Horace G., 328 Luxembourg, 138 Lynch, Jack, 251 Lyons, John, 72 Maanen, C.F. van, 140 Macaulay, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron, 358 Macedonia, 2, 15, 18, 319, 320, 321–322 Macedonian, 318–328 history of standardisation, 1 as majority, official language, 15, 320–321, 325, 327–328, 360 as minority language, 319–320, 327, 360, 361

and new media, 12 norms and authorities for, 18 script, 320 Macris, James, 223 Mair, Victor H., 68 Maittaire, Michael, 110 Maitz, Peter, 92 Mǎ Jiànzhōng, 61 Major, John, 255, 269n1 Malaysia, 29 Mandarin Chinese, 4–5, 57–68. See also Chinese Manx, 12, 18, 259–260, 267 Marathi, 44 Marin, Julia, 351 Marle, Jaap van, 31 Marti, Roland, 319 Martin, Robert, 282 Martin Chuzzlewit (Dickens), 122, 123, 124 Matthews, Stephen, 60 Matthias, Theodor, 171–174, 175, 176, 177, 178 May, Stephen, 326 Mayan languages, 81 Mazière, Francine, 275 Mechkovskaia, Nina, 296 the media. See also information and communications technology dissemination of prescriptivism, 113–114, 297, 309 and language ideologies, 256, 257–258 and minority languages, 333–334 as new domain for language use, 320, 343 reception of usage guides, 185–99 role in codification, 2, 7 as site of public assessments of language, 12, 13, 257–267, 295–296, 362 Meiklejohn, J.M.D., 128 Ménage, Gilles, 111 ‘Merci professeur!’ (TV show), 114 Mesthrie, Rajend, 24 Methodius, Saint, 292, 293 Mexican languages, 5, 81 Meyerhoff, Miriam, 24, 26 Michelena, Luis, 353n4 Middle English, 229 Middlesbrough, 12, 258, 264–267, 268 MigrationWatch, 263 Milroy, James on abnormality of standard languages, 73

Index

on ‘complaint tradition’ in English, 114–115 on consensus norms of regional speech communities, 353n8 definition of standard language, 337 on pronunciation, 351–352 on standardisation as ongoing process, 343 standardisation model, 3 Milroy, Lesley, 3, 114–115, 337, 352 Min dialect of Taiwan, 54n4 ‘Mind your Language’ (weblog), 115 minority languages. See also individual languages constitutional protection for, 15, 18, 319, 320, 322–324 as ‘dialects’, 357 European charter for, 15, 18, 327, 359–360 in multilingual contexts, 5, 75 planning for, 351, 352, 361 and political change, 15, 138 prescriptivism’s effects on, 71, 74, 84 purism and, 78, 82, 305 repression of, 320, 327, 342 Minova-Gjurkova, Liljana, 320 Mitxelena, Koldo, 342 MLA International Bibliography, 186 Moder, Carol Lynn, 230 Le Monde (newspaper), 113 morphology compound words, 295 gender, 297 irregular preterite forms, 224–225, 229–233, 246 suffixes, 203, 205–206, 206–213 verbal paradigms, 342 Morren, Diane, 28 Morren, Ronald C., 28 Morris, Mary, 203, 206 Morris, William, 203, 206 Morton, H.C., 188, 193, 194, 199nn(3, 4) Müller, Max, 128 Murray, James, 358–359 Murray, Lindley, 125, 128, 131 Mustajoki, Arto, 13–14, 288–302, 362, 363 Myanmar, 54n3 Myers-Scotton, Carol, 32–33 Nagy, Naomi, 24, 26 National Accelerated Literacy Acquisition Programme (NALAP), 75

379

National and University Library of Iceland, 159 National Archives of Iceland, 157 nationalism. See also language ideologies and construction of linguistic contrasts, 8, 155 and idealisations of language, 2, 12, 14, 155, 257, 363 language as symbol of, 16, 169, 342 and language ideology, 304–305, 363 and the media, 7, 268 and monolingualist ideology, 5, 256, 257, 267–268 and prescriptivism, 9, 14 National Pronunciation for Everyday Use (1932), 60 National Theatre of Porto, 351 Navarre, 343, 352 Neogrammarians, 39 neologisms. See also loanwords in Chinese, 61, 65, 362 and colonialism, 358–359 in English, 129, 223, 358–359 in French, 12–13, 109, 111, 274–279, 282–283, 359, 362 in Frisian, 16 official French definition, 277 in Russian, 294–295, 362 and writing systems, 49–51 Nepali, 44 The Netherlands, 15–16, 18, 25, 137–138, 364. See also Dutch; Frisian Neuland, Eva, 97 New Chinese Grammar of the National Language (Li), 61 New Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Burchfield). See also Burchfield, Robert; Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Fowler); Fowler, H.W. corpus of reviews of, 186–189 as descriptivist revision, 186, 190–191 entry selection, 206, 210 prescription on alright, 362 reception, 10, 185, 189–197 new media. See information and communications technology News Style Guide (BBC), 114 New Yorker (journal), 198 New York Times (newspaper), 198 New Zealand, 24, 25, 30, 364 New Zealand Oxford Dictionary (2005), 364. See also Oxford English Dictionary (OED)

380

Index

Nicholas, Thomas, 128 Nichols, Wendalyn, 224 Niger-Congo languages, 76, 360 Nigeria, 27, 29 norm, concept of, 289, 310 North Africa, 34 Northern Ireland, 357 North Korea, 4, 47, 48–49, 50 Nyagbo, 5, 74, 75, 76–81 O’Conner, Patricia, 192, 197 OED. See Oxford English Dictionary (OED) Office for National Statistics (ONS), 262, 263 Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills), 260 OGRM (Official Gazette of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), 323, 324 Okara, Gabriel jibaba, 29 Ólafsson, Bragi Þorgrímur, 153, 161–162 Old English, 229 Old Frisian, 16, 332, 335, 336 Old Icelandic, 154 Oldmixon, John, 110 Old Mon, 54n3 Old Norse, 8, 154–155, 158 Olson, David R., 40 Oñederra, Miren Lourdes, 16, 342–354, 360 ONS (Office for National Statistics), 262, 263 On the Study of Words (Trench), 128 Oppenlander, Ella Ann, 125 orthography and Basque pronunciation, 16, 18, 342, 349–350, 353n6 competitions, 114, 115 of Croatian, 19 of Dutch, 137, 142, 144, 331 of English, 362 of Frisian, 15–16, 335, 336–337 of Russian, 292–293 and writing system, 47–49 Orwell, George, 255, 269n1 Ottoman Empire, 15 Our Mutual Friend (Dickens), 122 Oxford English Dictionary (OED). See also Burchfield, Robert; dictionaries and the BBC, 115 inclusion of foreign words, 358–359 and nationalism, 7 plan for, 129–130

reliance on written texts, 365 Supplement to, 10, 186 Oxford University Press, 9, 17–18 Pakistan, 25, 29, 260 Pashto, 260 Payn, James, 131, 133 The Pedant (newspaper column), 115 The Pedigree of the English People Investigated (Nicholas), 128 Peking University, 58 Pennsylvania Gazette (newspaper), 133n4 People’s Daily (newspaper), 64, 66, 67 People’s Republic of China, 5, 48, 57, 64, 67 Percy, Carol, 128 Persian, 47 Peterborough, 12, 260–261 Peter I, Emperor of Russia (Peter the Great), 18, 293, 294 Peters, Pam, 10, 114, 202, 210, 240, 355–366 Le Petit Larousse illustré, 109 Le Petit Robert, 109 Philippines, 355, 361 Philological Society, 129–130 phonology. See also pronunciation in Basque dialects, 347–350 and Devanāgarī script, 44–45, 46–47, 48, 50 in Dutch northern and southern varieties, 144, 146 in Ewe dialects, 78 in Frisian dialects, 334, 336, 337, 338 and prosody, 346 The Pickwick Papers (Dickens), 122, 133n3 pidgins, 5, 84 Pivot, Bernard, 114 Plasschaert, Jean Baptiste Joseph Ghislain, 141 pluricentricity, 5, 64, 356, 360–361 Poland, 25, 364 Polish, 260, 262, 263 Pollard, Stephen, 263 Poortinga, Ype, 336 Portuguese, 27, 260 postcolonial English. See World English Pound, Louise, 124 Poussa, Patricia, 123 Prague Linguistic Circle, 305, 306, 310 prescriptivism. See also descriptivism; purism adherents to, 78, 223, 238–251, 294, 363

Index

attitudes towards, 71–72 as ‘common sense’, 258, 259, 267, 268–269, 363 as culture dependent phenomenon, 2 defined, 3, 275 and descriptivism, 169, 170, 188–189, 190–191 effect on linguistic diversity, 71, 73, 84 by exclusion, 177, 178 as a human tendency, 81–82 metalanguage of, 172, 174–175, 178, 191–195, 198 on pronunciation, 32, 121, 128, 130–131 social value of, 244 as a stage of the standardisation process, 1, 3 and stigmatisation of others, 257, 362 and stigmatisation of vernaculars, 5, 83 writing and, 39–41 Priestley, Joseph, 223, 236n1 Prioul, Sylvie, 112 Pronk, Tijmen, 19 pronunciation. See also spoken language of Basque, 15, 16, 342–353 dictionaries of, 32, 60, 61, 68, 121, 128 of English, 32, 121, 128, 130–131, 133n3 of German, 353n9 of Russian, 291 spelling, 16, 18, 53, 344, 345, 349 in usage guides, 222 propaganda, 312 ProQuest Historical Newspapers, 186 prosody in Basque, 346 in Lithuanian, 314n2 and phonology, 346 in Russian, 296–297 proto-Indo-European, 306 Provinsjale Steaten fan Fryslân, 331, 337 psycholinguistics, 81, 229, 230. See also linguists; sociolinguistics Punjabi, 263 purism. See also prescriptivism and human tendency to create norms, 81–82 and minority languages, 78, 305, 336 in pedagogy, 78, 157 in popular discussions of language, 113 and standardisation, 72–73, 74 in state propaganda, 312 types of adherents to, 239, 247–248

381

in usage guides, 11–12 and writing systems, 4, 49–51 Pushkin, Alexander Sergeevich, 18, 290, 294 Quarterly Review (journal), 124 Queen’s English Society, 115 Quemada, Bernard, 281 Querelles de langage (Thérive), 113 Quinion, Michael, 115 Quirk, Randolph, 123, 124 Raila, Eligijus, 310 Ramsey, S. Robert, 68 received pronunciation (RP), 27 recursiveness, concept of, 153–154 Reflections on the English Language (Baker), 112–113 register, concept of, 89 Remarques sur la langue françoise (Vaugelas), 107, 108–109, 111 Remarques sur la langue françoise au dixneuvième siècle (Wey), 111 Rey, Alain, 114 Richelet, César Pierre, 108 Richelieu, Armand Jean du Plessis (Cardinal), 106, 108, 273 Ricks, Christopher, 224 Le Robert illustré, 109 Roma, 326 Roman alphabet and Albanian, 15, 324 ban by Russian Empire, 306 as a cosmopolitan, demotic script, 50–51 difficulty, 53 and Hangul, 50 and Kana script, 50 and lexicography, 46 numerals in, 50 organisation of, 4, 41–42 and orthography, 47 Romance languages, 51 Romania, 15, 327, 360 Rooney, Andy, 193 Rossiiskaia grammatika (Lomonosov), 291 Royal Society, 107 Russell, Bertrand, 58 Russian, 288–299 in British schools, 260 dialects of, 288, 291 dictionaries of, 292, 296–297 historical background, 290–291

382

Index

laws protecting, 13, 18, 288, 296–298, 299 loanwords in, 291, 294–295, 362 as majority and minority language, 2, 14, 298–299 normative authorities for, 13–14, 18, 291–292, 296–297 orthography, 292–293 as a pluricentric language, 298–299, 356, 359 varieties of, 288, 298–299 Russian Empire, 306, 359 Russian Federation, 299, 363 Russki Mir (organisation), 13, 297 Rutten, Gijsbert, 7–8, 137–151 Ryukyuan, 51 Sacred Heart Primary School (Middlesbrough), 264, 267 Safire, William, 190, 196 Sala, George Augustus, 133n2 Sampson, Rodney, 105 Sanskrit, 44, 46, 48, 51–52 Sarler, Carol, 265–266 Saro-Wiwa, Ken, 29 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 39, 40 Schmidt, Ronald, 318 Schneider, Edgar W., 356 Schröder, Anne, 185, 224, 225, 226–227, 233 Schuermans, H.J., 140 Scotland, 357 second language learners. See also education; foreign language learners immigrant children as, 260–261, 262, 263, 268 in monolingual contexts, 26 motivations, 343 in multilingual contexts, 143 and pronunciation standardisation, 16, 344, 345, 352 and prosody, 346 transfer of assumptions from first language, 100 and usage guides, 212 A Select Glossary of English Words (Trench), 128 Šepetys, Nerijus, 309, 311 Serbia, 15, 320 Serbian, 326 Serbo-Croatian, 15, 19, 319, 328 Shapiro, Fred R., 225 Sheridan, Thomas, 121

Shils, Edward, 240–241, 246 A Short Introduction to English Grammar (Lowth), 121, 223 Shvedova, Natalia, 291 Sick, Bastian, 6, 88–89, 92–93, 94–97, 98, 100 Siegenbeek, Matthijs, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142 Simon, John, 189, 191, 192, 197, 224 Simpel, D. de, 143 Simplified Spelling Society, 115 Simpson, Paul, 186 Singapore, 5, 26, 29, 64 Siwu, 82–83 Sketches by Boz (Dickens), 125 Skopje, 325 slang, 131–132, 192, 294 Slavonic languages, 290–291 Slovakian, 260 Slovenian, 319 Smakman, Dick, 3–4, 17, 23–38, 355, 364 Smári, Jakob Jóhann, 156 Smits, Matthijs, 11, 221–237, 362 Smotritsky, Meletius, 291 Snell, Julia, 258, 267, 269 SNOOTs (syntax nudniks of our time), 223, 248 social media. See information and communications technology sociolinguistics. See also linguists and Dickens’s representation of East Anglian dialect, 123–124 field of inquiry, 88, 89 German, 93 and public discourse on language, 257, 267, 269 surveys of native speaker perceptions, 292 Western paradigms of, 24 Sørensen, Knud, 124–125 Sournia, J.C., 278 South Africa, 358, 361 South African English, 29 South-East Asia, 26, 54n3 South Korea, 47, 48–49, 50 South Slavonic, 291 Soviet Academy of Sciences, 291 Soviet Union attempts to erase associations with, 295 dissolution, 13, 288, 293 influence on Lithuanian language ideology, 303, 313–314

Index

language purity as propaganda in, 312 language regulation in, 309–310 neologisms introduced by, 294 notions of usage and norms, 311 occupation of Lithuania, 304, 306 status of Russian in, 298, 299 Spain, 18, 26, 342–343, 360 Spanish and Basque, 16, 344, 345, 346, 348, 353n6, 364 as a colonial language, 27 as a pluricentric language, 356 spelling. See orthography Spencer, Robert, 107 Spiegel Online (news site), 88, 92 spoken language. See also colloquial speech; pronunciation; written language and the concept of register, 89–90 as distinct from written language, 31–32, 51, 73, 147 fitness to be written, 332 and foreign language learning, 100 and language change, 51, 155, 232 recordings of, 333 Saussure’s focus on, 39–40 as social marker, 230 standardisation of, 343, 352, 364–365 subject to normative tendencies, 81–82 The Spoken Word: A BBC Guide (Burchfield), 115 Spolsky, Bernard, 320, 326 Sprachleben und Sprachschäden (Matthias), 171–174, 175, 176, 177, 178 Stampe, David, 346 Standard English. See also English associated with civility, 266 associated with morality, 124, 192 attempts to define, 246 as index of superiority and elitism, 121, 241, 242, 245, 266 New Zealand Oxford Dictionary’s definition of, 364 strong verbs in, 229 symbolic value, 125, 132 in usage guides, 196, 224, 227, 238 standardisation. See also Haugen, Einar; standard languages centrifugal vs. centripetal views of, 358–359 and code-switching, 33 ‘conspiracy of factors’ in, 155 and culture, 28, 355

383

lack of universal applicability, 19 language ideologies and, 153–154, 310 in multilingual contexts, 3–4, 26–30, 355 norm codification in, 168 as ongoing process, 343 promotion of uniformity, 349 pronunciation in, 32, 352 religion in, 40 Schneider’s evolutionary model of, 356 as ‘structuring the whole universe of the language’, 346 Western, monolingual context for, 3, 23–24, 25, 26, 30–31, 32 The Standardization of Geographic Names in the Republic of Macedonia (Velkovska), 324 standard languages association with morality, 124, 192 association with prestige, 33–35, 241 colonial languages as, 3 and ‘complaint traditions’, 114–115 and the definition of nation states, 73, 289, 304–305, 318 definitions and perspectives, 19, 23, 24–25, 35, 168, 337 effect on linguistic diversity, 71, 73, 84, 229, 230 exclusive vs. inclusive functions, 3, 25, 29–30, 121–122, 364 folk notion of, 39 functional variation, 337, 343, 344, 345, 355, 361–362 history of development, 1 and norms, 289 porous nature of, 73–74 regular vs. aspirational views of, 364 social value, 244 speech vs. writing in, 31–32, 73, 230, 364–365 (see also spoken language; written language) State University of Tetovo, 325 Stefanovski, Ljupčo, 326 Stieber, Willi, 177 Stoll, Max, 177 Straaijer, Robin, 10, 185–201 Strang, Barbara, 229 Strictly English (Heffer), 114, 115 Strunk, William, 222 Subačius, Giedrius, 25 Subačius, Paulius, 310 Sunny, Neethu, 32 Sur la Langue Nationale (Barafin), 141

384

Index

Swahili, 27, 31, 33, 34 Swain, Merrill, 94 Swedish, 305 Swift, Jonathan, 107 Switzerland, 25, 359 Sydney Morning Herald (newspaper), 198 syntax in corpus search engines, 226 negation in English, 222 negation in Icelandic, 155–156, 159–164 prepositions following different, 224–225, 233–235 sentence adverb hopefully, 224–225, 227–228 split infinitives, 204 verbal use of contact, 238, 250 word order in Estonian, 165n2 Tafi, 76 Tagalog, 361 Taglish, 355 Taiwan, 5, 48, 54n4, 64 Tajikistan, 260 Tanuševci, 321 Tanzania, 29, 34 TaxPayers’ Alliance, 263 Technology Development for Indian Languages (TDIL) programme, 47 Teesside, 267 The Telegraph (newspaper), 115, 133n2, 257, 264, 265 Tetovo, 321, 325 Thai, 54n3 Thérive, André, 113 Thomas, Jenny, 98 Thomas, Robert, 177 Thomason, Sarah Grey, 154 Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, 6–7, 105–120, 353n13, 358 Timarit.is (website), 152, 159 The Times (newspaper), 115, 240 Timmis, Ivor, 92, 99 Togo, 76 Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka (Dahl), 292, 359 Tongu dialect, 76 toponyms, 324 Toubon law (1994), 109, 110, 273 tradition, defined, 240–241 Traill, Catherine Parr Strickland, 122 Trench, Richard Chevenix, 128, 133n2 Trésor de la langue française, 109

triglossia, 75. See also diglossia Troilus and Cressida (Dryden), 107 Troublesome Words (Bryson), 114 Trudgill, Peter, 24, 115, 267 Turkish, 47, 325, 326 Tutuola, Amos, 29 Twi, 75 Tzotzil, 81 UÇK (Ushtria Çlirimtare Kombëtare), 321–322 Uganda, 27, 29, 31, 83 Ukraine, 298 Ukrainian, 290 UNESCO, 259 United Kingdom. See also colonialism immigration to, 255, 260–264, 269n3 lack of policy for use of English, 357, 359 language ideology in, 363 lay views of standard language in, 25, 257–267, 362, 364 linguistic stratification in, 121–122, 229–230 the media in, 256, 257–267, 362 nationalistic ideals of language in, 2, 12, 18 national self-imagining, 255, 257 reviews of New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, 188 United Nations Development Programme, 25 United States, 25, 26, 30, 188–189, 298, 322 Université Libre de Bruxelles, 88, 94 University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, 75 University of South-Eastern Europe, 325 Updike, John, 192 Upton, Clive, 266 urban vernaculars, 292, 359 Urdu, 47, 260, 263 usage, definition of, 289 usage guides. See also Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Fowler); Garner, Bryan; New Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Burchfield) and adherents of prescriptivism, 238–251 for American English, 221–236 for British English, 112–113, 114, 206 for French, 109, 111–112 for German, 171–177 and linguists, 189, 190–191, 192, 195, 198, 222

Index

selection of entries for, 202–220 use of corpora in, 10–11, 202–220 Ushtria Çlirimtare Kombëtare (UÇK), 321–322 Vaicekauskienė, Loreta, 14, 303–317, 356 Vandenbussche, Wim, 24, 155 Vaugelas, Claude Favre de, 107, 108–109, 111, 112, 113 Veloso, João, 351 verbal hygiene, concept of, 72, 78, 81 Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (UKN), 138, 141, 142, 148 Viðarsson, Heimir van der Feest, 152–167 Vienna, Congress of, 138 Villers-Cotterêts, Ordinance of, 273 Vinogradov, Viktor, 291 Vosters, Rik, 7–8, 137–151 Votrin, Valerij, 303 Vries, Jan Willem de, 28 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 88, 94 Wachal, Robert, 222, 226 Wales, 261, 262 Walker, Carol, 264, 265 Walker, John, 121, 128 Wallace, David Foster, 223, 248 Wallenberg, Joel, 155, 156, 158, 159 Wallraff, Barbara, 224 Walsh, Olivia, 116 Wáng Huī, 62 Watts, Richard J., 24 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (W3), 189, 199n4 Weiland, Pieter, 137–138, 140, 141, 142 West Africa, 25, 71, 359 Westlaw (corpus), 11, 203, 222, 224 Wey, Francis, 111 Whitcut, Janet, 114 White, E.B., 222 Willems, J.F., 141, 143 William I, King of the Netherlands, 8, 138, 139, 140, 148 Williams, Joseph M., 240, 244 Wills, W.H., 126 Wodak, Ruth, 256 Woe Is I (O’Conner), 192 Woordenboek der Friese Taal (1984–2011), 333 Woordenlijst Nederlandse Taal (2005), 331 WordSmith Tools, 187, 189, 199n2 WorldCat, 193 World English. See also English; Standard English

385

corpora of, 212, 365 nativised standards of, 28–29 in the Oxford English Dictionary, 358–359 pluricentricity of, 64, 194, 196 and Schneider’s evolutionary model, 356 twentieth-century spread, 2 ‘World Wide Words’ (weblog), 115 Wright, Sue, 318 writing systems, 39–54. See also individual scripts cosmopolitan vs. vernacular, 50–51 and diglossia, 53–54 and language change, 4, 51–53 and lexicography, 46–47 and minority language status, 15 Saussurean view of, 40 Southeast Asian, 54n3 and standardisation processes, 4, 41–54 written language. See also literary language; orthography; spoken language and the concept of register, 89–90 and dialects, 173 as distinct from spoken language, 31–32, 51, 73, 147 foreign influences on, 155 of minor and minority languages, 332, 334, 343 and prescriptivism, 39–40, 73, 81–82 as the standard language, 31–32, 73, 88, 94, 230, 289, 364–365 and vernacularisation, 39, 54 Wurdboek fan de Fryske Taal (1984–2011), 333 Wustmann, Gustav, 171–174, 175, 176, 177–178 Xiàmén, 63 Xī’ān, 63 Yip, Virginia, 60 Young, Wendy, 240 Young Grammarians, 39 Yuán Zhōngruì, 62 Yugoslavia, 319–320, 325, 328 Zambia, 29 Zhao Yuanren (Chao Yuen Ren), 4–5, 57–60, 68 Zhuangzi (Chuang Tzu), 85n1 ZweiDat corpus, 171, 175–176