This blog features a Language Calendar, and it includes 23 April – English Language Day (UN). Why was 23 April chosen for this, and why have an English Language Day to begin with? As a World Language, English is important enough as it is. So … Continue reading
The HUGE database includes as the second usage guide on our list, the anonymous Vulgarities of Speech Corrected. The copy included is the second edition, published in 1829, in London. A search in WorldCat produced an earlier edition from 1826, also published in London. But to my surprise, WorldCat mentions the novelist and educationalist Maria Edgeworth (1768-1849) as the book’s author. Could this be right? On what grounds did WorldCat make the identification? Neither the ODNB nor Wikipedia mention the book as one of her publications (though this is not unusual, since the ODNB doesn’t mention The Queen’s English in the entry on Henry Alford either).
Does anyone know more about the authorship of Vulgarities of Speech Corrected?
One of Simon Heffer‘s pet hates is the use of singular they: “Being a pedant,” he writes, “I regard [its use] unacceptable” (2010:110). Unacceptable or not, singular they, as Mittins et al. point out in Attitudes to English Usage (1970!), has been in use since at least the fifteenth century (p. 102). If even someone like Jane Austen uses it, how can it be unacceptable?
So well done, IKEA (and thanks to Gretchen McCulloch for tweeting about it), for adopting it and helping singular they become more acceptable, even, hopefully, to writers like Simon Heffer (but then perhaps he doesn’t shop at IKEA).
Now what I’d also like to know if if IKEA splits infinitives, misplaces only and uses literally as a plain intensifier. Let us have more images like this!
We are pleased to announce our 10th Bridging the Unbridgeable Lunch Lecture which will take place on 15 April 2015, from 12 to 1 pm at Lipsius, room 227. Our guest speaker, David Lorenz from the University of Freiburg will be giving a talk entitled “to-contraction in American English: The career(s) of a non-standard feature”.
You can find David’s abstract below, and if you decide to attend the event, do not forget to bring your own lunch!
to-contraction in American English: The career(s) of a non-standard feature
(David Lorenz, University of Freiburg)
– Abstract –
The pattern of to-contraction has often been noted as a feature of informal, spoken language, producing forms such as wanna, gonna, but also, for example, needa, oughta (cf. Bolinger 1981, Pullum 1997). This study offers a diachronic description of to-contraction from a Construction Grammar perspective, using data from the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA, Davies 2010).
While non-standard written representations of to-contraction occur since the 19th century, three specific forms – gonna, wanna and gotta – take a separate development and become increasingly conventional. In this process, their factors of use also change, showing the establishment of a connection across these items that fits the description of a ‘meta-construction’ (Leino & Östman 2005). Thus, the study shows how schematicity emerges in language from what started out as idiosyncratic cases of phonological reduction.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1981. “Consonance, dissonance and grammaticality: The case of wanna”. Language and Communication 1. 189-206.
Davies, Mark. 2010-. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810-2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/
Leino, Jaakko & Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. “Constructions and variability”. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, ed. by M. Fried & H. Boas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.191-213.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1997. “The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction”. Language 73. 79-102.
I’m about to start analysing the results from the Mittins surveys that have been a regular feature on this blog from its earliest days. Many people have let us have their views on the sentences the past few years, for … Continue reading
It was February 1997, and Robert Burchfield’s The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage had been out for three months. Just as the 1st and 2nd editions of the Dictionary of Modern English Usage came to be known as ‘Fowler’, The Economist asked itself whether the next edition would be known as ‘Burchfield':
The 1926 Fowler is already a period piece, though no one has ever gone wrong by taking its advice. The same, no doubt, will in time be true of “Burchfield” – as, perhaps, by 2097 the publisher of its latest revision will dare to call it.
– The Economist 1 February 1997.
It turns out The Economist didn’t have to wait for 100 years to get an answer, and it is ‘No’.
Yesterday, the 4th edition of ‘Fowler’ was published: Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage, edited by Jeremy Butterfield. It seems that Fowler is still THE name when it comes to guides to modern English usage.
Since I have been writing about Burchfield’s 3rd edition, my attention was immediately drawn to the fact that the publisher left the word New off the title of this new, 4th edition.
When it appeared in 1996, The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage received a lot of criticism from conservative reviewers, who accused Burchfield of trading Fowler’s name. The editor, Robert Burchfield, possibly put too much emphasis in his Preface on how the 3rd edition was different to the 1st and 2nd.
In his Preface, Butterfield begins by stating that it is indeed a new edition, but doesn’t emphasise that it is different from what came before, stating its mission in positive terms.
This new, fourth edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage has been thoroughly revised and updated to reflect how English speakers the world over use the language now, in the twenty-first century. (vii)
Those that published The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage underestimated how much of an institution ‘Fowler’ had become (see also the article in English Today by Ulrich Busse and Anne Schröder). OUP seems to know better now. Leaving the word New off the title is another way to reaffirm that this edition is just another ‘Fowler’, not New, but just new.
We’ve all been there. You are writing (what you think is) a perfectly good sentence in a Word document when, suddenly, the MS Word grammar checker tells you that you should consider revising the ‘fragment’, because something is wrong. Very often, it is quite unclear what is wrong or how the grammar checker decides what is a ‘fragment’ or how it spots grammatical or stylistic errors in a document.
Ingrid Tieken wrote recently that reading Anne Curzan’s latest book, Fixing English, prompted her to find out the usage problems that the MS Word grammar checker deals with. Around the same time, I was prompted to do the same thing when, while working on a paper, the MS grammar checker decided (out of the blue) that my passive clause was incorrect, and suggested correcting it into an active one. I don’t remember this happening before. Here’s proof number one:
A couple of days later, while writing this blog post, and simultaneously working on another document, it happened again! Proof number two:
So, passive constructions are now flagged in Word as mistakes. I wonder when this error category was introduced to the grammar checker and for what reasons, because passives are perfectly normal – or, in prescriptivist terms ‘correct’ – and it seems to me that it should be the author’s (stylistic) decision to use a passive rather than an active clause. (If you are interested in reading more about the odd obsession with the passive as a grammatical error, I strongly recommend Geoffrey Pullum’s brilliant and thorough discussion of the subject.) What’s even more intriguing, as Ingrid suggested as well, is who makes those decisions and based on what. So, I tried to find out more.
Unfortunately, my investigation on this hasn’t come to fruition yet, but I did find out that the MS grammar checker gives you two options: grammar and style, and you can decide whether you want to have only grammar errors flagged or both, grammar and style. Details about all this can be found here and you can choose how your grammar and style checkers work here. According to the FAQ page on Word grammar proofing, the style proofing option only appears in versions after 2002, so it’s not all that new. My guess is that the style checker is predominantly based on usage guides discussions of usage problems. This is quite important because, as Curzan points out in her book, the MS grammar (and style) checker is a powerful prescriptive force, not only in grammar, but in style as well. I think a lot of people would want to know what that’s based on. Hopefully, we’ll find out soon.
In the meantime, stay calm, keep working, and don’t be intimidated by the grammar checker let the grammar checker intimidate you!