509 lines
27 KiB
Markdown
509 lines
27 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
created_at: '2017-06-12T18:12:43.000Z'
|
||
title: 'Grammar Puss: The fallacies of the language mavens (1994)'
|
||
url: https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven-pinker-language-william-safire
|
||
author: Tomte
|
||
points: 51
|
||
story_text:
|
||
comment_text:
|
||
num_comments: 31
|
||
story_id:
|
||
story_title:
|
||
story_url:
|
||
parent_id:
|
||
created_at_i: 1497291163
|
||
_tags:
|
||
- story
|
||
- author_Tomte
|
||
- story_14539492
|
||
objectID: '14539492'
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
Of course, forcing modern speakers of English to not—whoops, not
|
||
to—split an infinitive because it isn't done in Latin makes about as
|
||
much sense as forcing modern residents of England to wear laurels and
|
||
togas. Julius Caesar could not have split an infinitive if he had wanted
|
||
to. In Latin the infinitive is a single word such as "facere," a
|
||
syntactic atom. But in English, which prefers to build sentences around
|
||
many simple words instead of a few complicated ones, the infinitive is
|
||
composed of two words.Words, by definition, are rearrangeable units, and
|
||
there is no conceivable reason why an adverb should not come between
|
||
them:
|
||
|
||
Space—the final frontier.... These are the voyages of the starship
|
||
Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to
|
||
seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has
|
||
gone before.
|
||
|
||
To "go boldly" where no man has gone before? Beam me up, Scotty; there's
|
||
no intelligent life down here. As for outlawing sentences that end with
|
||
a preposition (impossible in Latin for reasons irrelevant to English)—as
|
||
Winston Churchill said, "It is a rule up with which we should not put."
|
||
|
||
But once introduced, a prescriptive rule is very hard to eradicate, no
|
||
matter how ridiculous. Inside the writing establishment, the rules
|
||
survive by the same dynamic that perpetuates ritual genital mutilations
|
||
and college fraternity hazing. Anyone daring to overturn a rule by
|
||
example must always worry that readers will think he or she is ignorant
|
||
of the rule, rather than challenging it. Perhaps most importantly, since
|
||
prescriptive rules are so psychologically unnatural that only those with
|
||
access to the right schooling can abide by them, they serve as
|
||
shibboleths, differentiating the elite from the rabble.Throughout the
|
||
country people have spoken a dialect of English, some of whose features
|
||
date to the Early Modern English period, that H.L. Mencken called The
|
||
American Language. It had the misfortune of not becoming the standard of
|
||
government and education, and large parts of the "grammar" curriculum in
|
||
U.S. schools have been dedicated to stigmatizing it as sloppy speech.
|
||
|
||
Frequently the language mavens claim that nonstandard American English
|
||
is not just different, but less sophisticated and logical. The case,
|
||
they would have to admit, is hard to make for nonstandard irregular
|
||
verbs such as "drag/drug" (and even more so for conversions to
|
||
regularity such as "feeled" and "growed"). After all, in "correct"
|
||
English, Richard Lederer noted, "Today we speak, but first we spoke;
|
||
some faucets leak, but never loke. Today we write, but first we wrote;
|
||
we bite our tongues, but never bote." At first glance, the mavens would
|
||
seem to have a better argument when it comes to the loss of
|
||
conjugational distinctions in "He don't" and "We was." But then, this
|
||
has been the trend in standard English for centuries. No one gets upset
|
||
that we no longer distinguish the second person singular form of verbs,
|
||
as in "thou sayest." And by this criterion it is the nonstandard
|
||
dialects that are superior, because they provide their speakers with
|
||
second person plural pronouns like "y'all" and "youse."
|
||
|
||
At this point, defenders of the standard are likely to pull out the
|
||
notorious double negative, as in "I can't get no satisfaction."
|
||
Logically speaking, they teach, the two negatives cancel out each other;
|
||
Mr. Jagger is actually saying that he is satisfied. The song should be
|
||
titled "I Can't Get Any Satisfaction." But this reasoning is not
|
||
satisfactory. Hundreds of languages require their speakers to use a
|
||
negative element in the context of a negated verb. The so-called "double
|
||
negative," far from being a corruption, was the norm in Chaucer's Middle
|
||
English, and negation in standard French, as in "Je ne sais pas" where
|
||
"ne" and "pas" are both negative, is a familiar contemporary
|
||
example. Come to think of it, standard English is really no
|
||
different. What do "any," "even" and "at all" mean in the following
|
||
sentences?
|
||
|
||
I didn't buy any lottery tickets. I didn't eat even a single french
|
||
fry. I didn't eat junk food at all today.
|
||
|
||
Clearly, not much: you can't use them alone, as the following strange
|
||
sentences show:
|
||
|
||
I bought any lottery tickets. I ate even a single french fry. I ate junk
|
||
food at all today.
|
||
|
||
What these words are doing is exactly what "no" is doing in nonstandard
|
||
English, such as in the equivalent "I didn't buy no lottery
|
||
tickets"—agreeing with the negated verb. The slim difference is that
|
||
nonstandard English co-opted the word "no" as the agreement element,
|
||
whereas standard English co-opted the word "any."
|
||
|
||
A tin ear for stress and melody along with an obliviousness to the
|
||
principles of discourse and rhetoric are important tools of the trade
|
||
for the language maven. Consider an alleged atrocity committed by
|
||
today's youth: the expression "I could care less." The teenagers are
|
||
trying to express disdain, the adults note, in which case they should be
|
||
saying "I couldn't care less." If they could care less than they do,
|
||
that means that they really do care, the opposite of what they are
|
||
trying to say. But the argument is bogus. Listen to how the two versions
|
||
are pronounced:
|
||
|
||
> COULDN'T care I
|
||
|
||
> LE CARE
|
||
|
||
> i ESS LE
|
||
|
||
> could ESS
|
||
|
||
The melodies and stresses are completely different, and for a good
|
||
reason. The second version is not illogical, it's sarcastic. The point
|
||
of sarcasm is that by making an assertion that is manifestly false or
|
||
accompanied by ostentatiously mannered intonation, one deliberately
|
||
implies its opposite. A good paraphrase is, "Oh yeah, as if there were
|
||
something in the world that I care less about."
|
||
|
||
Through the ages, language mavens have deplored the way English speakers
|
||
convert nouns into verbs. The following verbs have all been denounced in
|
||
this century: to caveat, to input, to host, to nuance, to access, to
|
||
chair, to dialogue, to showcase, to progress, to parent, to intrigue, to
|
||
contact, to impact.
|
||
|
||
As you can see, they range from varying degrees of awkwardness to the
|
||
completely unexceptionable.In fact, easy conversion of nouns to verbs
|
||
has been part of English grammar for centuries. I have estimated that
|
||
about a fifth of all English verbs were originally nouns. Consider the
|
||
human body: you can "head" a committee, "scalp" the missionary, "eye" a
|
||
babe, "stomach" someone's complaints and so on—virtually every body part
|
||
can be "verbed" (including several that cannot be printed in a family
|
||
journal of opinion).
|
||
|
||
What's the problem? The concern seems to be that fuzzy-minded speakers
|
||
are eroding the distinction between nouns and verbs. But once again, the
|
||
person on the street is not getting any respect. A simple quirk of
|
||
everyday usage shows why the accusation is untrue. Take the baseball
|
||
term "to fly out," a verb that comes from the noun "pop fly." The past
|
||
form is "flied," not "flew" and "flown"; no mere mortal has ever flown
|
||
out to center field. Similarly, in using the verb-from-noun "to ring the
|
||
city" (form a ring around), people say "ringed," not "rang." Speakers'
|
||
preference for the regular form with "-ed" shows that they tacitly keep
|
||
track of the fact that the verbs came from nouns. They avoid irregular
|
||
forms like "flew out" because they sense that the baseball verb "to fly"
|
||
is different from the ordinary verb "to fly" (what birds do): the first
|
||
is a verb based on a noun root, the second, a verb with a verb root.
|
||
|
||
The most remarkable aspect of the special status of verbs-from-nouns is
|
||
that everyone feels it. I have tried out examples on hundreds of
|
||
people—college students, people without college educations, children
|
||
as young as 4. They all behave like good intuitive grammarians: they
|
||
inflect verbs that come from nouns differently than plain old verbs. So
|
||
is there anyone, anywhere, who does not grasp the principle? Yes—the
|
||
language mavens. Uniformly, the style manuals bungle their explanations
|
||
of "flied out" and similar lawful examples.
|
||
|
||
I am obliged to discuss one more example: the much vilified "hopefully."
|
||
A sentence such as "Hopefully, the treaty will pass" is said to be a
|
||
grave error. The adverb "hopefully" comes from the adjective "hopeful,"
|
||
meaning "in a manner full of hope." Therefore, the mavens say, it should
|
||
be used only when the sentence refers to a person who is doing something
|
||
in a hopeful manner. If it is the writer or reader who is hopeful, one
|
||
should say, "It is hoped that the treaty will pass," or "If hopes are
|
||
realized, the treaty will pass," or "I hope the treaty will pass."
|
||
|
||
Now consider the following:
|
||
|
||
(1) It is simply not true that an English adverb must indicate the
|
||
manner in which the actor performs the action. Adverbs come in two
|
||
kinds: "verb phrase" adverbs such as "carefully," which do refer to the
|
||
actor, and "sentence" adverbs such as "frankly," which indicate the
|
||
attitude of the speaker toward the content of the sentence. Other
|
||
examples of sentence adverbs are "accordingly," "basically,"
|
||
"confidentially," "happily," "mercifully," "roughly," "supposedly" and
|
||
"understandably." Many (such as "happily") come from verb phrase
|
||
adverbs, and they are virtually never ambiguous in context.The use of
|
||
"hopefully" as a sentence adverb, which has been around for at least
|
||
sixty years, is a perfectly sensible example.
|
||
|
||
(2) The suggested alternatives, "It is hoped that" and "If hopes are
|
||
realized," display four sins of bad writing: passive voice, needless
|
||
words, vagueness, pomposity.
|
||
|
||
(3) The suggested alternatives do not mean the same thing as
|
||
"hopefully," so the ban would leave certain thoughts
|
||
unexpressible. "Hopefully" makes a hopeful prediction, whereas "I hope
|
||
that" and "It is hoped that" merely describe certain people's mental
|
||
states. Thus you can say, "I hope the treaty will pass, but it isn't
|
||
likely," but it would be odd to say, "Hopefully, the treaty will pass,
|
||
but it isn't likely."
|
||
|
||
(4) We are supposed to use "hopefully" only as a verb phrase adverb, as
|
||
in the following:
|
||
|
||
Hopefully, Larry hurled the ball toward the basket with one second left
|
||
in the game. Hopefully, Melvin turned the record over and sat back down
|
||
on the couch eleven centimeters closer to Ellen.
|
||
|
||
Call me uncouth, call me ignorant, but these sentences do not belong to
|
||
any language that I speak.
|
||
|
||
I have taken these examples from generic schoolmarms, copy editors and
|
||
writers of irate letters to newspaper ombudsmen. The more famous
|
||
language mavens come in two temperaments: Jeremiahs and Sages.
|
||
|
||
The Jeremiahs express their bitter laments and righteous prophesies of
|
||
doom. The best-known is the film and theater critic John Simon. Here is
|
||
a representative opening to one of his language columns:
|
||
|
||
"The English language is being treated nowadays exactly as slave traders
|
||
once handled the merchandise in their slave ships, or as the inmates of
|
||
concentration camps were dealt with by their Nazi jailers."
|
||
|
||
What grammatical horror could have inspired this tasteless comparison,
|
||
you might ask? It was Tip O'Neill's redundantly referring to his "fellow
|
||
colleagues."
|
||
|
||
Speaking of the American Black English dialect, Simon says:
|
||
|
||
Why should we consider some, usually poorly educated, subculture's
|
||
notion of the relationship between sound and meaning? And how could a
|
||
grammar—any grammar—possibly describe that relationship?... As for "I
|
||
be," "you be," "he be," etc., which should give us all the
|
||
heebie-jeebies, these may indeed be comprehensible, but they go against
|
||
all accepted classical and modern grammars and are the product not of a
|
||
language with roots in history but of ignorance of how language works.
|
||
|
||
This, of course, is nonsense from beginning to end (Black English is
|
||
uncontroversially a language with its own systematic grammar), but there
|
||
is no point in refuting this malicious know-nothing, for he is not
|
||
participating in any sincere discussion. Simon has simply discovered the
|
||
trick used with great effectiveness by certain comedians, talk show
|
||
hosts and punk rock musicians: people of modest talent can attract
|
||
attention, at least for a while, by being unrelentingly offensive.
|
||
|
||
The Sages, on the other hand, typified by the late Theodore Bernstein
|
||
and by William Safire himself, take a moderate, commonsense approach to
|
||
matters of usage, and they tease their victims with wit rather than
|
||
savaging them with invective. I enjoy reading the Sages, and have
|
||
nothing but awe for a pen like Safire's that can summarize the content
|
||
of an anti-pornography statute as, "It isn't the teat, it's the
|
||
tumidity." But the sad fact is that even Safire, the closest thing we
|
||
have to an enlightened language pundit, misjudges the linguistic
|
||
sophistication of the common speaker and as a result misses the target
|
||
in most of his commentaries and advice. To prove this charge, I will
|
||
walk you through parts of one of his columns, from the October 4, 1992,
|
||
New York Times Magazine.
|
||
|
||
The first story was a nonpartisan analysis of supposed pronoun case
|
||
errors made by the two candidates in the 1992 presidential
|
||
election. George Bush had recently adopted the slogan "Who do you
|
||
trust?," alienating schoolteachers across the nation who noted that
|
||
"who" is a subject pronoun and the question is asking about the object
|
||
of "trust." One would say "You do trust him," not "You do trust he," and
|
||
so the question word should be "whom," not "who."
|
||
|
||
In reply, one might point out that the "who/whom" distinction is a relic
|
||
of the English case system, abandoned by nouns centuries ago and found
|
||
today only among pronouns in distinctions such as "he/him." Even among
|
||
pronouns, the old distinction between subject "ye" and object "you" has
|
||
vanished, leaving "you" to play both roles and "ye" as sounding
|
||
archaic. Though "whom" has outlived "ye," it is clearly moribund, and
|
||
already sounds pretentious in most spoken contexts. No one demands of
|
||
Bush that he say, "Whom do ye trust?" If the language can bear the loss
|
||
of "ye," why insist on clinging to "whom"?
|
||
|
||
Safire, with his reasonable attitude toward usage, recognizes the
|
||
problem, and proposes:
|
||
|
||
Safire's Law of Who/Whom, which forever solves the problem troubling
|
||
writers and speakers caught between the pedantic and the
|
||
incorrect: "When whom is correct, recast the sentence." Thus, instead
|
||
of changing his slogan to "Whom do you trust?"—making him sound like a
|
||
hypereducated Yalie stiff—Mr. Bush would win back the purist vote with
|
||
"Which candidate do you trust?"
|
||
|
||
Telling people to avoid a problematic construction sounds like common
|
||
sense, but in the case of object questions with "who," it demands an
|
||
intolerable sacrifice. People ask questions about the objects of verbs
|
||
and prepositions a lot. Consider the kinds of questions one might ask a
|
||
child in ordinary conversation: "Who did we see on the way home?," "Who
|
||
did you play with outside tonight?," "Who did you sound like?"
|
||
|
||
Safire's advice is to change such questions to "Which person...?" or
|
||
"Which child...?" But the advice would have people violate the most
|
||
important maxim of good prose: omit needless words. It also subverts the
|
||
supposed goal of rules of usage, which is to allow people to express
|
||
their thoughts as clearly and precisely as possible. A question such as
|
||
"Who did we see on the way home?" can embrace one person, many people or
|
||
any combination or number of adults, babies and familiar dogs.Any
|
||
specific substitution such as "Which person?" forecloses some of these
|
||
possibilities. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Safire should
|
||
have taken his observation about "whom" to its logical conclusion and
|
||
advised the president that there is no reason to change the slogan, at
|
||
least no grammatical reason.
|
||
|
||
Turning to the Democrats, Safire gets on Bill Clinton's case, as he puts
|
||
it, for asking voters to "give Al Gore and I a chance to bring America
|
||
back." No one would say "give I a break," because the indirect object of
|
||
"give" must have objective case. So it should be "give Al Gore and me a
|
||
chance."
|
||
|
||
Probably no "grammatical error" has received as much scorn as the
|
||
"misuse" of pronoun case inside conjunctions (phrases with two parts
|
||
joined by "and" or "or"). What teenager has not been corrected for
|
||
saying "Me and Jennifer are going to the mall"? The standard story is
|
||
that the object pronoun "me" does not belong in the subject position—no
|
||
one would say "Me is going to the mall"—so it should be "Jennifer and
|
||
I." People tend to misremember the advice as, "When in doubt, say
|
||
\`so-and-so and I,' not \`so-and-so and me,'" so they unthinkingly
|
||
overapply it, resulting in hyper-corrected solecisms like "give Al Gore
|
||
and I a chance" and the even more despised "between you and I."
|
||
|
||
But if the person on the street is so good at avoiding "Me is going" and
|
||
"Give I a break," and even former Rhodes Scholars and Ivy League
|
||
professors can't seem to avoid "Me and Jennifer are going" and "Give Al
|
||
and I a chance," might it be the mavens that misunderstand English
|
||
grammar, not the speakers? The mavens' case about case rests on one
|
||
assumption: if a conjunction phrase has a grammatical feature like
|
||
subject case, every word inside that phrase has to have that grammatical
|
||
feature, too. But that is just false.
|
||
|
||
"Jennifer" is singular; you say "Jennifer is," not "Jennifer are." The
|
||
pronoun "she" is singular; you say "She is," not "She are." But the
|
||
conjunction "She and Jennifer" is not singular, it's plural; you say
|
||
"She and Jennifer are," not "She and Jennifer is." So a conjunction can
|
||
have a different grammatical number from the pronouns inside it. Why,
|
||
then, must it have the same grammatical case as the pronouns inside
|
||
it? The answer is that it need not. A conjunction is not grammatically
|
||
equivalent to any of its parts. If John and Marsha met, it does not mean
|
||
that John met and that Marsha met. If voters give Clinton and Gore a
|
||
chance, they are not giving Gore his own chance, added on to the chance
|
||
they are giving Clinton; they are giving the entire ticket a chance. So
|
||
just because "Al Gore and I" is an object that requires object case, it
|
||
does not mean that "I" is an object that requires object case. By the
|
||
logic of grammar, the pronoun is free to have any case it wants.
|
||
|
||
In his third story Safire deconstructs a breathless quote from Barbra
|
||
Streisand, describing tennis star Andre Agassi: "He's very, very
|
||
intelligent; very, very, sensitive, very evolved;... He plays like a Zen
|
||
master. It's very in the moment."
|
||
|
||
Safire speculates on Streisand's use of the word "evolved": "its change
|
||
from the active to passive voice—from \`he evolved from the Missing
|
||
Link' to \`He is evolved'—was probably influenced by the adoption of
|
||
involved as a compliment."
|
||
|
||
These kinds of derivations have been studied intensively in linguistics,
|
||
but Safire shows here that he does not appreciate how they work. He
|
||
seems to think that people change words by being reminded of rhyming
|
||
ones—"evolved" from "involved," a kind of malapropism. But in fact
|
||
people are not that literal-minded. New usages (such as "to fly out")
|
||
are based not on rhymes, but on systematic rules that change the
|
||
hundreds of words' grammatical behavior of dozens of words in the same
|
||
precise ways.
|
||
|
||
Thus Safire's suggestion that "very evolved" is based on "involved" does
|
||
not work at all. For one thing, if you're involved, it means that
|
||
something involves you (you're the object), whereas if you're evolved,
|
||
it means that you have been doing some evolving (you're the
|
||
subject). The problem is that the conversion of "evolved from" to "very
|
||
evolved" is not a switch from the active voice of a verb to the passive
|
||
voice, as in "Andre beat Boris" to "Boris was beaten by Andre." To
|
||
passivize a verb you convert the direct object into a subject, so "is
|
||
evolved" could only have been passivized from "Something evolved
|
||
Andre"—which does not exist in contemporary English. Safire's
|
||
explanation is like saying you can take "Bill bicycled from Lexington"
|
||
and change it to "Bill is bicycled" and then to "Bill is very bicycled."
|
||
|
||
This breakdown is a good illustration of one of the main scandals of the
|
||
language mavens: they show lapses in elementary problems of grammatical
|
||
analysis, like figuring out the part-of-speech category of a word. In
|
||
analyzing "very evolved," Safire refers to the active and passive voice,
|
||
two forms of a verb.But the preceding adverb "very" is an unmistakable
|
||
tipoff that "evolved" is not being used as a verb at all, but as an
|
||
adjective. Safire was misled because adjectives can look like verbs in
|
||
the passive voice, and are clearly related to them, but they are not the
|
||
same thing. This is the ambiguity behind the joke in the Bob Dylan
|
||
lyric, "They'll stone you when you're riding in your car; They'll stone
|
||
you when you're playing your guitar.... Everybody must get stoned."
|
||
|
||
This discovery steers us toward the real source of "evolved." There is a
|
||
lively rule in English that takes the participle of certain intransitive
|
||
verbs and creates a corresponding adjective:
|
||
|
||
a leaf that has fallen —\> a fallen leaf
|
||
|
||
snow that has drifted —\> the drifted snow
|
||
|
||
a man who has traveled widely —\> a widely traveled man
|
||
|
||
Take this rule and apply it to "a tennis player that has evolved," and
|
||
you get "an evolved tennis player." This solution also allows us to make
|
||
sense of Streisand's meaning. When a verb is converted from the active
|
||
to the passive voice, the verb's meaning is conserved: "Dog bites man"
|
||
to "Man is bitten by dog." But when a verb is converted to an adjective,
|
||
the adjective can acquire idiosyncratic nuances. Not every woman who has
|
||
fallen is a fallen woman, and if someone stones you you are not
|
||
necessarily stoned. We all evolved from a missing link, but not all of
|
||
us are evolved in the sense of being more spiritually sophisticated than
|
||
our contemporaries.
|
||
|
||
Safire then goes on to rebuke Streisand for "very in the moment":
|
||
|
||
This very calls attention to the use of a preposition or a noun as a
|
||
modifier, as in "It's very in," or "It's very New York," or the ultimate
|
||
fashion compliment, "It's very you." To be very in the moment (perhaps a
|
||
variation of the moment or up to the minute) appears to be a loose
|
||
translation of the French au courant, variously translated as "up to
|
||
date, fashionable, with-it" ...
|
||
|
||
Once again, by patronizing Streisand's language, Safire has misanalyzed
|
||
its form and its meaning. He has not noticed that:
|
||
|
||
The word "very" is not connected to the preposition "in"; it's connected
|
||
to the entire prepositional phrase "in the moment."
|
||
|
||
Streisand is not using the intransitive "in," with its special sense of
|
||
"fashionable"; she is using the conventional transitive "in," with a
|
||
noun phrase object "the moment."
|
||
|
||
Her use of a prepositional phrase as if it were an adjective to describe
|
||
some mental or emotional state follows a common pattern in
|
||
English: "under the weather," "out of character," "off the wall," "in
|
||
the dumps," "out to lunch," "on the ball" and "out of his mind."
|
||
|
||
It's unlikely that Streisand was trying to say that Agassi is au
|
||
courant, or fashionable; that would be a put-down implying shallowness,
|
||
not a compliment. Her reference to Zen makes her meaning clear:that
|
||
Agassi is good at shutting out distractions and concentrating on the
|
||
game or person he is involved with at that moment.
|
||
|
||
The foibles of the language mavens, then, can be blamed on two blind
|
||
spots: a gross underestimation of the linguistic wherewithal of the
|
||
common person, and an ignorance of the science of language—not just
|
||
technical linguistics, but basic knowledge of the constructions and
|
||
idioms of English, and how people use them.
|
||
|
||
Unlike some academics in the '60s, I am not saying that concern for
|
||
grammar and composition are tools to perpetuate an oppressive status quo
|
||
and that The People should be liberated to write however they
|
||
please. Some aspects of how people express themselves in some settings
|
||
are worth trying to change. What I am calling for is a more thoughtful
|
||
discussion of language and how people use it, replacing bubbe-maises
|
||
(old wives' tales) with the best scientific knowledge available. It is
|
||
ironic that the Jeremiahs' wailing about how sloppy language leads to
|
||
sloppy thought are themselves hairballs of loosely associated factoids
|
||
and tangled non sequiturs. All the examples of verbal behavior that the
|
||
complainer takes exception to for any reason are packed together and
|
||
coughed up as proof of The Decline of the Language: teenage slang,
|
||
sophistry, regional variations in pronunciation and vocabulary,
|
||
bureaucratic bafflegab, poor spelling and punctuation, pseudo-errors
|
||
like "hopefully," government euphemism, nonstandard grammar like
|
||
"ain't," misleading advertising and so on (not to mention occasional
|
||
witticisms that go over the complainer's head).
|
||
|
||
I hope to have convinced you of two things. Many prescriptive rules are
|
||
just plain dumb and should be deleted from the handbooks. And most of
|
||
standard English is just that, standard, in the sense of standard units
|
||
of currency or household voltages. It is just common sense that people
|
||
should be encouraged to learn the dialect that has become the standard
|
||
in their society. But there is no need to use terms like "bad grammar,"
|
||
"fractured syntax" and "incorrect usage" when referring to rural, black
|
||
and other nonstandard dialects (even if you dislike "politically
|
||
correct" euphemism): the terms are not only insulting, but
|
||
scientifically inaccurate.
|
||
|
||
The aspect of language use that is most worth changing is the clarity
|
||
and style of written prose. The human language faculty was not designed
|
||
for putting esoteric thoughts on paper for the benefit of strangers, and
|
||
this makes writing a difficult craft that must be mastered through
|
||
practice, feedback and intensive exposure to good examples. There are
|
||
excellent manuals of composition that discuss these skills with great
|
||
wisdom—but note how their advice concentrates on important practical
|
||
tips like "omit needless words" and "revise extensively," not on the
|
||
trivia of split infinitives and slang.
|
||
|
||
As for slang, I'm all for it\! I don't know how I ever did without "to
|
||
flame," "to dis" and "to blow off," and there are thousands of now
|
||
unexceptionable English words such as "clever," "fun," "sham," "banter"
|
||
and "stingy" that began life as slang. It is especially hypocritical to
|
||
oppose linguistic innovations reflexively and at the same time to decry
|
||
the loss of distinctions like "lie" versus "lay" on the pretext of
|
||
preserving expressive power. Vehicles for expressing thought are being
|
||
created far more quickly than they are being abandoned.
|
||
|
||
Indeed, appreciating the linguistic genius of your ordinary Joe is the
|
||
cure for the deepest fear of the mavens: that English is steadily
|
||
deteriorating. Every component of every language changes over time, and
|
||
at any moment a language is enduring many losses. But the richness of a
|
||
language is always being replenished, because the one aspect of language
|
||
that does not change is the very thing that creates it: the human mind.
|
||
|
||
Steven Pinker is Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard and the
|
||
author of The Stuff of Thought.
|
||
|
||
**For more TNR, become a fan
|
||
on [Facebook ](http://www.facebook.com/thenewrepublic)and follow us
|
||
on [Twitter](http://twitter.com/tnr).**
|