Prescriptivism & Political Philosophy

[Geoffrey Nunberg]

The connection between prescriptivism and the cultural right is
purely contingent, I think, and dates only from the period after the
publication of Webster's Third. Before that there was a long line of
English-language critics on the were concerned about language
standards from a left position.

In 1823, for example, the English radical William Cobbett published a
little book called Grammar of the English Language, "intended for the
Use of Schools and of Young Persons in general; but more especially
for the Use of Soldiers, Sailors, Apprentices, and Plough-boys." When
Cobbett came to giving "specimens of false grammar," he chose
extracts from the Prince Regent's address to Parliament (finding in
it "an unhappy absence of intellect"), a letter by the Home Secretary
Lord Castlereagh ("Do you understand what this great Statesman
means?. . . You can guess; but you can go little further"); and a
letter of the Duke of Wellington (in which "all is vulgar, all
clumsy, all dull, all torpid inanity"). This view of language
criticism as a way of dispelling false consciousness is the same one
that animated writers up through Orwell, and it has resonances in
other traditions, as well -- see, for example, the remarks on
prescriptive grammar that Gramsci made in the prison notebooks.

The recent polarization of usage in the US and the UK has inevitably
distorted what is at stake -- and this for both sides, I think. To
take one example, the term "traditional grammar" is new to these
discussions -- as best I can make out it dates from the 1950's,
though I'd be interested if anyone has a clear date for this. It
coincides with the use of "traditional" as a qualifier of things like
furniture, weddings, houses, families, and values -- that is, as a
counter to "modern" and all it implies. That is, to describe
furniture styles or grammatical rules as "traditional" is to suggest
that they were generally and uncritically accepted before the modern
began to subvert them -- you turn them into things like ballads or
pumpkin pie recipes, which have no known origin but have simply been
handed down from one generation to the next. But whatever else the
principles of usage criticism may be, they're not the same sort of
things as "Turkey in the Straw."

I think linguists and lexicographers have done a disservice to the
public in uncritically accepting this view of language criticism as
being necessarily the handmaiden of the cultural right -- they
sometimes seem to be saying that _any_ discussion of values is
misplaced on scientific grounds and can only serve cultural hegemony,
a view that unwittingly plays into the hands of the current
right-wing champions of "traditional grammar." This is too
complicated an issue to go into here, but let me close with two
suggestive quotes from Jespersen:

"Breadth of vision is not conspicuous in modern linguistics, and to
my mind this lack is chiefly due to the fact that linguists have
neglected all problems connected with a valuation of language. What
is the criterion by which one word or one form should be preferred to
another? (most linguists refuse to deal with such questions of
preference or of correctness of speech). Are the changes that we see
gradually taking place in languages to be considered as on the whole
beneficial or the opposite? (most linguists pooh-pooh such
questions).  It is my firm conviction that such questions as these
admit of really scientific treatment and should be submitted to
serious discussion." (Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin,
p. 99)

"I dare to declare that there is also a higher linguistic morality
than that of recognizing the greatest absurdities when they once have
usage on their side." (Mankind, Nation and Individual from a
Linguistic Point of View, p. 100)

Geoff Nunberg




>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Poster:       Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
>Subject:      Prescriptivism & Political Philosophy
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In the recent discussion of The Vocabula Review, several contributors
>mentioned a relationship between liberal/conservative political ideology and
>prescriptivism, but no one provided any details of why there might be such a
>relationship. For my part, I can't think of any strong arguments either way
>and I can identify prescriptivists who come from a range of political
>ideologies. I would be interested in knowing what the outlines of such an
>argument might be, in particular why a liberal might consider language and
>its use more important than a conservative would.
>
>The reason I ask is not because of prescriptivism per se, but because I've
>been doing some work on linguistic folklore and have identified several
>false etymologies and language tall tales that have a distinctly liberal
>political bent. These include (but are not limited to):
>1) the false etymologies for "picnic" and "Indian/In Dios";
>2) the "they speak Latin in Latin America" quote falsely attributed to Dan
>Quayle;
>3) the belief that the term and concept of "politically correct" were coined
>by the right in order to make fun of the left.
>
>I cannot, however, find corresponding tales that reflect a conservative
>bent. I can think of three reasons for this:
>1) Living in Berkeley, I just haven't heard the conservative tales;
>2) It's a small sample and the skew to the left is normal statistical
>variation, i.e., coincidence;
>3) There is a real tendency for those on the left to invent/promulgate
>stories about language usage.
>
>My intent is not to start a political discussion or to further the debate on
>the merits, or lack thereof, of prescriptivism. I'm just curious about a
>potential relationship between an individual's political philosophy and
>their concern about language. My email is dave at wilton.net for those who
>don't want to respond to the list.
>
>--Dave Wilton
>   dave at wilton.net