Language prescriptivism is a moral issue?

Great Debates
1

So says John Simon in the foreword to Robert Hartwell Fiske’s The Dictionary of Disagreeable English. I think that, given that there is no official governing body of the English language, the arguments of the book don’t have a technical leg to stand on. Even if there were a sanctioning body, going into hysterics because someone misuses words seems over the top. A quote:

Simon goes on to claim that dictionaries, compiled by “copycats, cynics, lickspittles, or opportunists”, are no longer reliable guides. Fiske himself in the preface calls dictionary writers “laxicographers” because they record how language is used, not–as he thinks they should–how language ought to be used. Because of this, dictionaries have become (to him) at best useless and at most dangerous, for “if we ignore the distinctions between words, we begin to ignore or disapprove of the distinctions between people”.

To support his argument, Fiske cites recent additions to dictionaries such as “headbanger”, “conversate”, “McJob”, and other “idiotic” (his word) slang, and mourns for the words like “womanfully” and “diaskeuast” that had to be dropped to make room for them. He contends that most slang, by definition, is ephemeral, and that to include it in modern dictionaries is a mere marketing ploy and not good lexicography.

Some of his prescriptivism I can get behind. For example, Fiske argues that word “abrogate” (to abolish) is often confused with “arrogate” (to take or claim). To me, that’s sensible. A boat is not the same thing as a car (two words for two different things). But to contend that “flaccid” is only pronounced “flak-sid” and not “flass-id”, or to get bent out of shape over using “thankfully” to mean “I am thankful” seems pedantic and a waste of effort. Language evolves, so words can develop different meanings.

Problem is, I don’t know where to draw the line. Is there a line? Or is strict prescriptivism “the side of the angels”, as John Simon in the foreword says? Or is the opposite true: Are prescriptivists the ones with the problem? Simon says (heh) that language is one of the last ways for people to rise above the common denominator and separate ourselves from “the great unwashed.” To me, cosmetic elitism (which language is, arguably) is pure snobbery. Real elitism shines through in ones actions.

What say you, Dopers?

2

I was going to say I can be as snobby about language as anybody, but I guess Simon proves that isn’t true. No, this is not a moral issue or a matter of social cohesion. That’s just stupid. His complaints about dictionaries might have some merit; I don’t doubt for a second that publishers of dictionaries choose to include some words to generate conversation in order to sell more copies. But social cohesion is not improved if John Simon tells everyone else how to speak.

3

Taco fishcake diaper banjo!

4

I tend towards the prescriptive end of the spectrum, but acknowledge that enough room has to be allowed to acknowledge te development of the language.

I guess I feel there are different standards for different types of communication. Many descriptivists say, “What does the form matter, so long as the meaning is understood.” It seems obvious that such an approach would be more appropriate in casual conversation (or electronic communication) than in most contracts and other legal documents. Having the ability to refer to a standard allows assumptions as to what the parties intended/understood by their communications.

5

So, Fiske coins his own neologism “laxicographer” while complaining about other neologisms like “McJob”. That shows that he’s stupid as well as mean-spirited. Like many prescriptivists, he’s not only trying to enforce the wrong rules, but he’s breaking them himself at the same time.

6

I’m probably annoyed by many of the things that annoy Simon, but I just can’t sign on to his thesis at all. After all, the language he speaks is the result of free variation on the part of millions of speakers that came before him. Who is he to draw the line at his own preferences?

7

That doesn’t look “hysterical” to me. It sounds more like Simon cares deeply about the topic. His insults directed at those on the other side of the linguistics divide may be slightly over the top, but I’m in broad agreement with what Simon says. (Har har) To call something a “moral issue” is not the same as saying that it’s vital for the upkeep of society. Moral issues can be small things, such as whether we allow shopkeeping, whether we litter, or whether we practice standard types of politeness on a daily basis. No one of these things is huge, but added together they determine, to a large extent, how enjoyable life is in society.

Personally I think that it’s great shame that everyday language is becoming so degenerate, not because I crave a sense of snobbish superiority, but rather because it’s so much fun to use a large vocabularly and use it well, and it’s also fun to hear others using it well. Take the use of the word “epic” for instance. Why does almost everyone use it to mean “big”? We already have plenty of words that actually mean big: huge, large, gargantuan, tremendous, towering, massive, enormous, elephantine, and so forth. Wouldn’t it be more enjoyable to spice up a conversation with those words rather than endlessly misusing “epic”?

(Everyone should read this gargantuan diatribe about the English language.)

8

I think this is the most glaring problem with the prescriptivist argument. If they do allow that language can change–and they do, since even strict prescriptivists rarely “thou” and “wherefore” in ordinary conversation these days–what is the acceptable manner of change? Who gets to decide when a word changes meaning, or becomes archaic? The English language has no governing body, and Fiske and Simon don’t seem to be arguing for one, so the only way language can change is if “the great unwashed” start using words to mean different things.

I say all this, but I still cringe when I hear “10 items or less,” or when “farther” (a relative measure of distance) is used instead of “further” (to a greater extent).

9

Steven Fry disagrees vehemently:

10

“Is becoming”? Really? This is typical get-off-my-lawnism. It’s purely selective perception, all in your head.

11

By failing to adapt to naturally evolving standards of usage, John Simon is harming the social fabric. He is interfering with the gracious and efficient use of language and selfishly putting his own lazy usage patterns ahead of the greater good of society as a whole.

12

I think language prescriptivism is a moral issue, but in the opposite direction. I think it is generally used to belittle and shame and ostracize others.

13

I think that’s a mischaracterization; most people understand the importance of social registers, and nobody but extremists would think it’s acceptable to sling street slang at a corporate board meeting.

Truth is, there’s no conflict at all in saying that a phrase is legitimate English because it is understandable and grammatically correct while at the same time evaluating its appropriateness in a given context. Those are two related but not opposed concepts, but all too often they’re conflated and legitimacy is evaluated for a given context rather than appropriateness.

14

Prescriptivist arguments, being arguments about how one should be using language, often make heavy use of appeals to morality. Witness the fact that every time a dialectal or nonstandard pronunciation is being discussed here, someone will say that that pronunciation has developed because it is “lazy”. Even when one isn’t trying to make an appeal to morality by using this word, the fact remains that it is a loaded word and that the simple fact it is being used to describe language stems from a moralistic way of looking at it.

ETA: I should point out that it is understandable that people think of language in moralistic terms. Language is heavily tied into culture, and with it comes the whole baggage of social interactions.

15

Sure, but how, and at what point in their lives do people develop the tools for both types of communication? I know my kids received far less grammar education than my wife and I received, and everything I have read since has led me to believe that less and less is being taught.

I’m reminded of when my kids were in grade school, and the schools said they did not need to teach penmanship because the kids would be keyboarding all the time. Just discussed this with my college-aged kids over Thanksgiving, and guess what? Of course the kicker is that the schools never took the time to teach effective keyboarding either! :rolleyes:

16

Semi tangent clarification here…

First, it isn’t “every time” it is discussed. You’re imagining an epidemic that doesn’t exist. I was the only one who used the word “lazy” in the other thread. I was surprised that 3 or more people took offense to it because in my domain of algorithms and computational complexity (this includes computational linguistics), the word “lazy” is neutral. We use phrases such as “this algorithm for solving uses lazy evaluation” or “this conditional branch is evaluated lazily.” The opposite of the term lazy would be “eager evaluation.” Because of my (overexposure) to “lazy”, I tend to use that word in contexts outside of computation without any moral judgment and assume that others will also interpret it without any emotional baggage.

I’m as non-prescriptivist as one could get as for language usage.

17

Three points -

Simon appears to suffer from a type of personal arrogance that he is the measure of all things. If only everyone would use language that he deems appropriate then the world would be a better place, &c.

Language has evolved over the years to its current state. Why is this arbritary point in history the chosen end point? Why not 200 years ago, or 15 years hence?

Evolution is the constant state, and evolution is agnostic, it does not pick winners and losers, or better or worse. Everthing just progresses. For a period of time, some are more successful in the environment than others. Time passes and others are more successful. This can be applied to organisms, species, and words. Language evolves.

18

Thank you for this, it is magnificent. I especially was drawn to his point about suitability and context being a much more appropriate concern than “correctness”. To paraphrase, you put on a suit for a job interview, and you dress up your language, too. You can wear what you like and speak how you like when you are at home or with friends, but in a more formal context you speak or write in a more formal way. There is no more such a thing as “wrong” language than there are “wrong” clothes. It’s about what’s suitable to the occasion.

Unfortunately, sounding educated often is derided as too highbrow, even if it actually is appropriate for the occasion. People who don’t know how to use language appropriately are only hurting themselves. This is as true for someone who is unable to clearly address a serious public meeting as it is for someone who corrects his friends’ grammar.
Roddy

19

A fair argument could be made that if language is a moral issue, the moral position is the exact opposite of John Simon. Change is good. Change improves the world. Change is moral. To be unable to change proves that you are limited in your thinking and unable to adapt to the world. If everyone took that attitude, we’d still be grunting at each other instead of speaking, provided we used the formal and traditional grunts that our monkey forefathers used.

20

That is multiple kinds of awesomeness all in one.