The Age of Prescriptivism The Effects of Prescriptivism

The Age of Prescriptivism The Effects of Prescriptivism in Language History 21− 22 January 2016 Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade Leiden University Centre for Linguistics

Learning English in the 1960 s English as a Foreign Language (EFL) ¢ Standard English taught in schools ¢ A fixed grammar − rules to learn ¢ Strong verbs l Periphrastic do l Pronominal system l Shall/will l. . . l 2

18 th-century English Variable spelling, grammar ¢ Most so in private documents ¢ Where do the rules come from? ¢ Who formulated them? l How do they relate to usage? l • At the time − today Native speakers’ awareness of rules? l How influential are they? l 3

Myths about prescriptivism “Icon of prescriptivism” “inherited the eighteenth-century doctrine of correctness”

Standardisation process ¢ The Milroy model (1985): Selection l Acceptance l Diffusion l Maintenance l Elaboration of function l Codification l Prescription l Nevalainen and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006)

The Age of Prescriptivism? Commonly assumed: the 18 th century ¢ But: the Age of Codification ¢ l ¢ Codifiers: Lowth, Priestley, Murray Prescription: Lowth a precursor l Critical footnotes • Based on Monthly and Critical Reviews l 6 Baker’s Reflections on the English Language (1770): first usage guide

No English Academy ¢ Codification “from below” Dictionaries l Grammars l • Role of the publishers: Robert Dodsley ¢ Prescription “from below” Private interest: usage guides l A market for usage advice l • → publishers’ interest 7

A publishing industry 8 Tieken-Boon van Ostade (in progress)

Usage guide writers Usually: amateurs, not linguists ¢ Invited by publishers ¢ l l l “This book was the idea of Nigel Wilcockson, my publisher at Random House”: Simon Heffer, Strictly English (2010) Patricia O’Conner (1996), Bernard Lamb (2010) Kingsley Amis, The King’s English († 1996) • A publisher’s project l 9 A journalist, editor, scientist, novelist

HUGE database ¢ Online database of usage guides and usage problems − Robin Straaijer Freely available: http: //huge. ullet. net/ l Bridging the Unbridgeable blog l • Manual, sample questions, FAQ l 77 selected usage guides 1770− 2010 • British and American publications 123 usage problems: mostly grammar l Every usage problem its own story l 10

Attitudes survey (2012) I could of gone to that party ¢ Response: ¢ l l 11 Some of my students also say, and write, “I have went. ”) (62 -year-old American female English professor) I hear people say have went, not have gone (64 -year-old American female teacher) Where I live, people will say, “I could have went to that party. ” (55 -year-old American female teacher) I would probably be more likely to say, “I could have went to the party. . . ” (27 -year-old American female teacher)

Have went ¢ Difference in meaning: l ¢ I envision myself continuing the sentence with a reasoning of why I didn’t go to the party. For example, “I could have went to the party, but I had another commitment. ” The sentence is unacceptable, because I think it should read “have went” instead of “of gone”. When something is gone, I think of it as empty. I wouldn’t say, “I gone to the store”. I would say, “I went to the store”. Went implies going to a certain place. An American usage problem l Subtle distinction in non-standard usage Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Kostadinova (2015)

Irregular verbs (case study) A closed class → a limited set ¢ Where to find the complete list? ¢ Ritchie (2013), English for the Natives l Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978) l The lists are not identical ¢ Variation allowed ¢ l 13 e. g. British/American (Longman)

How many are there? No reply to the blog post ¢ Ritchie: 244; Longman: 253 (excl. modals) ¢ Usage guides (HUGE): 265 ¢ Altogether: 328 unique verbs ¢ 63 verbs not treated in HUGE l 61 under simple verbs (partake, relay) l 2 not treated at all: bless, shrive l • → no usage problems ¢ 14 201 simple verbs (earn, shave, wreak)

Treatment in usage guides Not treated at all: 10/77 in HUGE ¢ Some provide lists ¢ l ¢ Others: brief sections on irregular verbs l ¢ e. g. Vulgarities 1826, Live&Learn 1856, Swan 1980, Carter&Skates 1988 e. g. Fogarty 2008, Heffer 2010 Others: individual entries only/also l l Betake, forecast, hamstring cf. -ic/ical, flat adverb: swelling contents Straaijer (forthc. ), Lukač and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (forthc. )

Treatment (2) ¢ Swan’s list: 39 simple verbs Differences between Br/Am English l “If you have difficulty with irregular verbs, it might be a good idea to learn these ones by heart. ” l Doesn’t mention hanged/hung l ¢ Taggart 2010 l 16 “People used to be hanged; pictures and meat are hung. ”

Treatment (3) ¢ Most frequently treated verbs: Blog question: be, dive or sneak, lie/lay l lie/lay (61), hang (32), beat, dive, prove (18), light, go, sneak (14), drink (13) l No consensus on what to include ¢ Competition of weak verbs? ¢ l Vulgarities 1826 − 102 verbs (98 firsts) • beated, bited, catched, casted, comed, cutted, eated, readed, sended. . . 17

Unique verbs ¢ Live&Learn 1856? − 61 l ¢ abide, arise, gild, gird, mistake. . . Cf. Garner 1988 − 4 l climb, drown (drownded), gnaw, skid Peters 2004 − 1: wed ¢ Drownded in COCA: 17 instances ¢ l ¢ All FIC or spoken usage (NB categorisation!) In COHA: peaks in 1880, 1920 18 l Why did Garner include it?

Treatment (4) − catched Vulgarities 1926, Live&Learn 1936, Hall 1917, Ebbitt&Ebbitt 1939 ¢ No longer a usage problem today? ¢ 5 in BNC (CONV), 6 in COCA (5 FIC) l 107 in COHA l 19

Treatment (5) – casted Vulgarities 1826, Fowler 1926, Ebbitt&Ebbitt 1939, Vallins 1951, De Vries 1991, Garner 1998 ¢ A usage problem today ¢ 1 in BNC (well crafted and well casted) ¢ 4 in COHA: 1930, 1960, 1970, 2000 ¢ 29 in COCA ¢ SPOK 12, NEWS 4, MAG 3, FIC 1 l ACAD 9 – casted cadence (3) l 20

Casted: Br vs Am usage 21

forecasted ¢ 2 Usage guides l Fowler 1926 • “we may thankfully rid ourselves of the ugly forecasted” l ¢ Accepted today? l 22 Carter&Skates 1988: acceptable alternative to forecast BNC (14), COCA (138), COHA (30)

Treatment (5) ¢ Most elaborate, most scholarly: l ¢ Peters 2004 − treatment by verb class Peters is a linguist Best qualified l Best usage guide l • Based on surveys ¢ Suitable for a usage guide? l beseech, blow, burn, bust, cloathe, dive, drink, get, hang, hew, lie/lay, light, load, prove, sew, shit, slay, sneak, sweat, swear, tread, underlay/lie, wring Tieken-Boon van Ostade (in progress)

The effects of prescriptivism? ¢ Irregular verbs: not fixed No uniform treatment, Br/Am usage l New meanings arise: hang, go l ¢ Effects measured by some linguists l Peters (2006), Albakry (2007) • e. g. very unique, like for as • Effect of newspaper style guides l Ebner (forthc. ), Kostadinova (forthc. ) • Surveys and interviews 24

Flat adverb No longer a usage problem ¢ Jane Austen’s avoidance ¢ l ¢ Conscious change, not from above Rise of thusly − hypercorrection Stigmatised, edited out l Popular among young speakers l Change in progress away from usage guide advice l Lukač and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (forthc. ) Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2013 b)

The tide is turning ¢ Informants’ pet peeves (survey 2015) Avoidance of preposition stranding l Objection to hopefully l Insistence on whom l ¢ Another informant (F, American): “[whom is] fine … if you are in the objective case and are trying to sound like a snob, but otherwise say who. I won't say who directly after a preposition, but I do re-write sentences to avoid being in that position. It's lovely to have that as an option for when you do (for whatever reason) want to sound like a snob, but only then. ” Tieken-Boon van Ostade (in progress)

Conclusion The Age of Prescriptivism is NOW ¢ Stage 8 in the Milroyan standardisation process ¢ l ¢ After prescription Counter-reaction Fed up with prescriptivism l Led by young speakers? l ¢ Real question: l 27 What will come next?