The Fourth of July and 500 Mistakes of Daily Occurrence

Since it is the fourth of July today, I might perhaps draw on the possibility that many people will be Googling for “Independence Day” or indeed “the fourth of July” to invoke their help in identifying a reference.

Lots more pictures where this one came from: http://4thofjuly-pictures.com/

I’ve already referred on this blog to my research on one of the earliest (anonymous) American English usage guides called Five Hundred Mistakes of Daily Occurrence (1856). Having just heard that my paper has been accepted for publication (thank you, Marina!) I was reminded of one the entries in the book:

134. “The Americans said they had no right to pay taxes.” [From a Fourth of July Oration.] They certainly had a right to pay them, if they wished. What the speaker meant was, they were under no obligation to pay, or, they were not bound to pay.

Apart from the fact that I’m not sure if I understand the point made here, I was wondering if anyone can help me identify the source, which I haven’t been able to find. Then again, it may just have been a spoken source (“oration”). Where should I look?

But: even if you are unable to help, American readers of the blog,

Happy Independence Day!

Posted in usage guide | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Censoring the ‘G-word’

Within the political correctness (PC) movements, many words addressing discrimination ended up on the banned list throughout the years. However, the PC vocabulary has a number of opponents as well, who rightfully claim that the PC movement is occasionally used to hide actual discrimination and inequality, and, at other times, that it tends to go too far (you can easily find some entertaining PC dictionaries and word lists online).

The latest word to stir the PC controversy is ‘girl’, after BBC presenter Mark Beaumont used it to describe a 19-year-old judo champion, Cynthia Rahming, in a documentary on the Commonwealth Games. The champion herself stated that she was not offended by the word, but the BBC executives disagreed and decided to censor it. Two camps have been formed since, one supporting the BBC’s censorship decision, and the other referring to it as another PC battle that had gone too far.

Untitled-6.jpg

HuffPost UK Blogger B.J. Epstein stresses the differences in using the word ‘girl’ and the male equivalent ‘boy’:

“I would never refer to colleagues as ‘boys’, nor would I call grown men ‘boys’, and yet people, especially men, continually do this to me and to other women.”

On the other side, the Tory MP Phlip Davies criticised the censorship decision by saying that:

“We are going to end up in a situation where nobody is going to dare say anything lest some politically correct zealot deems it offensive.”

This discussion is neither new nor brought up by this incident alone. In 2004, the Ofsted head, David Bell, gave a speech to mark the International Women’s Day, in which he stressed how language plays a significant role in discrimination,

“The use of the word ‘girl’ is often used as an insult, meaning ‘not up to it’ or ‘can’t hack it’ or ‘inadequate’. It is naïve to think that this has no effect on girls.”

American and British author, Bonnie Greer, gave a statement on this topic at the same time, saying that she found the phenomenon of calling grown up women ‘girls’ rather typical of the UK, and that it was among the most shocking things she had discovered after moving from the US in the 1980s.

To truly judge potential discrimination by using this seemingly neutral word, we need to go back to the context in which it was used. Mark Beaumont was taken aback after being floored by the judo champion, when he was heard saying “I am not sure I can live that down – being beaten by a 19-year-old girl.” In this case, I would agree with Guardian’s Naomi McAuliffe when she concludes that Beaumont was making a joke about feeling emasculated after a defeat by a young woman.

Surely he should not have felt too surprised or emasculated since he did take on one of the best black belts in the country – regardless of her gender and young age.

Let us know what your thoughts are on the usage of the word ‘girl’. Is it really more common in British English? And should it really be banned in certain contexts?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What’s happening to punctuation?

Going up to London for the day yesterday, we took the train to London King’s Cross. Not surprisingly (we all know what’s been happening to the apostrophe) the announcement on the train didn’t show the apostrophe.

But if punctuation marks are lost, new ones show up in unexpected places. How about this:

having lunch in London

What does the full stop mean here? And do you have any other examples? And is it happening in other languages too?

Posted in usage features | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Advertising the Symposium in Cambridge

Burrell's walk

in the centre

in the centre

The English Faculty

Posted in news | Tagged | Leave a comment

Next generation of prescriptivists?

“I am a pedant. There is no question about it. Everyone I know would agree, and I accept and embrace it. I have no problem with being called a nerd, or a geek, or any synonyms of these words.”

Albert Gifford

These are the words of Albert Gifford, a 15-year-old schoolboy from Shepton Mallet, Somerset. Despite his young age, Albert has the courage to take on big giants when it comes to grammar. Recently, he has managed to force the supermarket giant Tesco to change its Orange juice packaging over a grammar mistake. Apparently, Tesco’s orange juice is the “most tastiest”. Albert, however, won’t rest on his oars and has his eyes set on BMW. Read his comment in The Guardian to find out more about it.

Whether to correct or not to correct other people’s mistakes was discussed in a previous blog post by Robin Straaijer. Would you correct your family and friends, colleagues and acquaintances? Albert says the following in The Guardian:

” … I try to hold back the temptation to correct people. My friends and family get quickly irritated if I point out their mistakes, and I have tried to accept that people make errors in speech, as they often just blurt things out with little thought …”

What surprised me was Albert’s dedication and his reasoning for complaining to the media and commercial giants. According to him, large companies have a responsibility and need to set a good example.

As I am investigating attitudes towards usage problems in British English, I am always interested in finding out what people think about “poor” language use. Reading Albert’s account makes me wonder whether the phenomenon of language prescriptivism will ever cease to exist or whether it will be a constant companion. Is there a next generation of prescriptivists?

Posted in polls and surveys, usage features | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Hey, you guys!

Below follows Cristina Cumpanasoiu’s second blogpost:

Having originated in the U.S., the earliest instance of the noun guy in the sense of “man, fellow” according to the Oxford English Dictionary dates back to 1847 when Lord Chief Baron in Swell’s Night Guide said “I can’t tonight, for I am going to be seduced by a rich old Guy”. Since the nineteenth century the use of this simple word, more specifically its plural form guys, has developed to such extent its original meaning broadened but also came to be bleached, including women as referents as well.

Source: allhabs.net

I feel I should start by confessing that I don’t consider myself a feminist, but the word caught my attention when, in the beginning of their presentation, one of my fellow students greeted the audience by “Hi, guys!” although there were eight women and only three men in class. Nobody reacted to that and I doubt anyone would have expected a reaction. Why would they? Apparently, the vocative guys used for addressing groups of men, women or mixed ones, is spreading throughout British English as well. )

source: CUP website

According to the rules found in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, the user can to refer to both genders when using the plural: “The archetypal guy is male, but the plural guys can include both sexes, as often in the vocative form you guys.”(2004:237)

Now, this apparently simple, word can be used for instance to ask a group of female friends: “How are you, guys?” but never to compliment one female friend by saying: “Jennifer, you’re such a good looking guy!” I mean, nobody would think that if addressed as a “guy”, a girl would feel comfortable, to put it mildly.

In the same way, while everybody is used to addressing questions in the second person plural using guys, as in “How are you, guys?”, no one seems to use guy for the singular: “How are you, guy?”, even if the people involved are both men.

Now let’s stop for a moment and think what would have been our reaction if my fellow student instead of greeting the whole group with “Hi, guys!” would have said “Hi, girls!”. I bet some of us would have felt offended or at least amused … probably the guys, I mean, the men. So why is girls still gender-specific when guys is not? Is it because masculinity in general rejects any association with female-like features and as a result most of the generic words are male? Or is it because women are so keen in showing their equality to men? Whatever the answer may be, the vocative guys used for all gender, is nowadays creating controversy as it is spreading out to all the varieties of spoken English.

How about you? Have you ever stopped to wonder about you guys now being a new typeof  plural pronoun in English or are you so used to hearing and saying it that now it is part of your daily speech routine?

Posted in MA Leiden, usage features | Tagged , | 7 Comments

Parasitic plants and buttons: on language imagery

Marten van der Meulen‘s second blog post is about imagery and usage.

Writing a usage guide is hard work, not in the least because the subject matter can be dry like a desert. Who but the most hardened language pundits will not gasp for water after reading page upon page on inverted sub-clauses and preposition stranding? Of course, (most) writers of usages guides are very much aware of this. They solve the problem in different ways. Humor is a much observed solution (its other function of course being the mediation of otherwise often quite harsh accusations). Another solution, often employed to explain intricate subjects, only recently caught my eye: the use of particular types of imagery. Two in particular are used often: language as clothing and language as a garden. Of course these images are not limited to the usage guide domain, but they seem to occur with particular frequency in this medium.

Only last week David Shariatmadari asked himself in The Guardian if language was like fashion. He dissected the imagery used and found it wanting, but of course that is ultimately only to be expected of any type of imagery: things seem similar, but are not the same. Nonetheless, the comparison is frequently used: we betray ourselves by the language we use, similar to how we betray ourselves in the way we dress. “If we care so much about clothing, why are we so indifferent about the way we use language?”, F. Bakels asked in 1956, in a pamphlet on the preparation of written pieces for editors called Goed taalgebruik en het persklaar maken van stukken.The lenghtiest example I have come across was in the introduction to Van Wageningen’s Even tijd voor … onze taal! (“Now it’s time for … our language!”), published in 1946. Van Wageningen questions readers at length on why we care if a button is missing from our shirt, but do not care if we use a word that has “lost its zing” (“verloor zijn kracht”)?

Source: the Internet (but no longer to be found)

Source: the Internet (but no longer to be found)

The other frequent type of imagery found focusses on language as a garden, from which noxious weeds (i.e. wrong words or constructions) have to be weeded out. An example of such a vegetative image is found in a booklet called Ons Nederlands (“Our Dutch”), published in 1946, where I came across the sentence Via is een machtige woekerplant geworden (“[the word] Via has become a mighty parasitic plant”: a very strong comparison of something that suffocates a structure. Other examples include the amazing title of a book from 1897, called Onkruid onder de tarwe. Proeve van taalzuivering (“Weeds in the wheat. Example of language purification”) by Hippoliet Meert, which is of course based on Matthew 13:25.

It is interesting to consider the extent to which these images are aptly applied. Personally, I think the clothing image is quite good: people immediately judge us by the way we speakjust as by the way we dress. However, we can easily go and change the way we dress: to really change the way we speak borders on the impossible (see what Labov said on the Prinzivalli-bomb threat case). The garden image works in the sense that we can decide to use only pretty words and clever constructions, just like we can fill our garden with roses. But it does not work because although we can try to eradicate weeds, they creep into our personal language at a subconscious level: there is very little we can do about it.

Of course, it could be that this is a feature of some of the Dutch books I have been reading lately. A quick search through the 1996 edition of Fowler’s Modern English Usage produced one example of a garden image, which was unrelated to weeds in any sense but did have positive connotations: on page 513 under the head word names and appellations we find the sentence Such correspondence is a paradisal garden for the amateur collector of unexpected connections.

There are plenty of other types of imagery to be found, although they do not seem as pervasive in usages guides as far as I can tell. I’ve come across, for instance, language rules are like traffic rules, language is like the weather, and language is like water. A complete survey of images used for language is beyond the humble scope of this blog post. I would be happy to learn of any other clothing/garden images you come across in your own usage guides or general reading!

Posted in MA Leiden, usage guide | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Beware, the World Cup is coming

Yes, there is futebol even on this blog! Read Jan van den Berg‘s second post, and let us have your comments, for all languages!

Today, 12 June 2014 – the start of the World Cup. An exciting time for many. A time when most people are stuck behind their TV screens watching some twenty men fighting for their nation’s glory. Arguably, this is reason enough to stay at home and watch football this summer. Moreover, even people who normally abstain from watching football are all dressed up in horrible chauvinistic outfits screaming their lungs out. In other words, a fun time for all.

However, there is one group of people who, quite possibly, are not looking forward to the World Cup in Brazil, namely language purists. Why? Because during the World Cup both football players and ex-football players are given a platform to express themselves not only physically, but also verbally. Therefore, I would advise you to listen to some of the interviews football players give before or after  a match and take a piece of paper and note down any grammatical or other linguistic howlers. Chances are you’ll run out of ink. In the Netherlands we’ve got one particular former football player who, besides being considered one of the football greats of all time, is famous for his incorrect use of Dutch. This is Johan Cruijff (born 1947).

Source: Wikipedia

One of his famous expressions is: Je moet altijd zorgen dat je een doelpunt meer scoort als de tegenstander (“always make sure you score one goal more than your opponent”). In this instance we find that Cruijff mistakenly uses the conjunction als, whilst he should be using the conjunction dan. However, this is just one instance where Cruyff messes up. In Dutch there is even a word to label his bad use of Dutch, termed, Cruyffiaans (“Cruyffian”).

Naturally, Cruyff is not the only one. Thus, it seems that while football players often walk the walk, they often are unable to talk the talk. Consequently, language purists, you have got a tough summer ahead of you. The World Cup is coming.

Posted in MA Leiden, news, usage features | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What makes a usage guide? (part 2)

A little over a month ago, I posted a survey on this blog, asking you which genres you think usage guides are most closely related to: dictionaries, spelling/punctuation guides, descriptive grammars, popular writing on language, handbooks on writing or style guides. It appears that of all of you who responded to this poll, the majority felt that usage guides were most like style guides. In addition, a fair number felt they were most like handbooks on writing. The full results of the poll are here.

piechart-UGgenres

You will remember that I did not explain what I think usage guides are, and that I only provided the terms of these genres without giving a description of them, which left this open to your own interpretation. This was intentional, as I don’t want to influence your opinions.

To get a clearer picture of your ideas of what defines usage guides, I have planned a short series of polls, all very short. The following looks at another aspect of what makes a usage guide; it is also from the perspective of their content. Please take the poll and tell me what you think usage guides should primarily deal with.

Posted in polls and surveys | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Excuse me, I am terribly sorry to bother you, but …

Carmen Ebner's avatarDr Carmen Ebner

The data collection is soon coming to an end and it is time to say a big THANK YOU to everyone who has filled in the survey, shared it with friends and nagged their family about completing it. The feedback has been amazing! If you haven’t filled in the questionnaire yet, then do give it a go.

What I have learnt from my fieldwork trips so far is that administration can be an utterly annoying and terribly time-consuming necessary evil. In order to avoid the trouble, I would like to ask you (yes, you) for your help:

  • Do you live in the Greater London Area, Cambridge or Oxford?
  • Are you interested in an interview and perception tests dealing with English language usage?
  • Do you know of any websites, fora or the like through which I could find possible informants?

In case you answered one or preferably all three of the above…

View original post 57 more words

Posted in polls and surveys, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment