Language Prescription. Группа авторов
in the English tradition are present in other language traditions. However, Dutch approaches to prescriptivism and linguistic purity are also highly influenced by their connection to the trends toward and pushback against nationalism in Western Europe after World War II. By examining the epithets used in the Dutch practice of prescriptivism, van der Meulen makes explicit the assumptions about language made by critics, which assumptions reveal the values of the critics.
In the final chapter in this section, Loreta Vaicekauskienë examines the societal values filtered through educational policy in Lithuania. Vaicekauskienë shows how the Lithuanian government sees language purism as an important value, not least because Lithuania has been subjugated to imperial language policy in the past. Through education and propaganda, the Lithuanian language is used to foster a national identity. This chapter offers another disruption of the binary, but from the other direction – trained linguists, who are traditionally descriptivists, have been co-opted as prescriptivists. This chapter subverts the binary between prescriptivist and descriptivist because Vaicekauskienë shows that many linguists are willing to use their skills completely in service to a prescriptivist enterprise that underscores national (or at least governmental) values. In another twist, prescriptivist regulation is not primarily designed to exclude the less powerful, but to defend against empire; one of its chief motivations is to recover the national identity after decades of Russian oppression, both politically and linguistically.
The second section of this volume adds complexity in both research methods and linguistic traditions that serves to re-examine the binary between linguistics and prescriptivism.
2.3 Part 3: Responding to Correctness: Personal Values and Identity
The third section of the volume shifts from exploring binaries on a disciplinary or societal level to exploring how linguistic prescriptivism shapes (and is shaped by) the personal values and identities of specific communities.
In Chapter 9, Carmen Ebner addresses the theoretical issues of values, identities and binaries directly, noting that besides regulating language, prescriptions serve the important function of demarcating identities, which often create binaries: ‘us’ vs ‘them’ or ‘good guys’ vs ‘bad guys’. Ebner looks at British and American attitudes toward two prescriptive rules. Among the most important identities that these examples reinforce are vernacular vs written and British vs American. These examples reinforce some binaries (vernacular/written and British/American) while disrupting others, especially correct/incorrect. Prescriptivism isn’t monolithic and must acknowledge that the ‘right forms’ in one community can be contrasted with entirely different ‘right forms’ in other communities. But the ‘right forms’ serve as an important piece of identity maintenance within communities.
Alyssa Severin and Kate Burridge continue this theme of linguistic identity maintenance by looking at complaints about linguistic issues in the Australian tradition. Severin and Burridge argue that Australians have built a strong national identity based on the distrust of authority, yet there is plenty of evidence that they crave authoritative injunctions, particularly in language regulations. They examine Australian approaches to prescriptive language in contrast to the national values of independence and distrust of authority. In so doing, they also uncover many other identities that are reinforced by attitudes toward correctness, such as ‘old school’ vs ‘newer ways’ or ‘educated’ vs ‘permissive’. Through their empirical methods of examining complaints, Severin and Burridge are able to identify clearly the linguistic issues that the Australian public values.
The next two chapters take a novel approach to identity, examining the role of prescriptive attitudes in reflecting a religious identity (cf. Edwards, 2009: 100). Chapter 11 by Nola Stephens-Hecker links attitudes toward right and wrong language with Christian believers’ larger views of language diversity as being either a problem (curse) or a benefit (blessing). She further links the Christian injunction toward charity with attitudes toward linguistic diversity. In this formulation of how to treat language diversity, Stephens-Hecker confronts the richer notion of language that Joseph articulates in the first section of the volume. She finds that the links between attitudes toward diversity of languages and attitudes toward proscribed forms are present, but not very strong, thus disrupting the moral/reprehensible binary. People who see value in striving for obedience to God’s commandments are not necessarily inclined to see the same duty to observe prescriptive rules. However, for those who value authority (such as Christians who see the Bible as the ultimate authority on living), knowing and obeying rules can be a driving force of personal identity.
In Chapter 12, Kate Burridge examines the linguistic values of a different Christian community, namely the Anabaptists (Mennonites) of southern Ontario. While this traditional faith community might be expected to mirror the approaches of the Christians in Stephens-Hecker’s study, the binary didn’t work for this community because they simply saw no need to regulate diversity. A principal value for the Anabaptists is humility, so privileging one language or dialect or even linguistic variant over another would be contrary to that value. This chapter stands out in contrast to Joseph’s arguments – and assumptions that are common in many prescriptivism studies – that prescriptivism is inevitable. Rather, Burridge shows that it is possible for a community to be aware of language variation without being evaluative or critical of that variation. The Anabaptist’s attitudes and statements about language connect with the values of the individuals within the community – just as we see in the English, Americans, Australians and Christians in the other chapters in this section.
The connection of values to individual and societal identities and linguistic prescriptivism provides another complication to an investigation of the binaries: the binaries are present, not because they are oversimplifications of complicated ideas, but because they provide valuable tools for communities to create and maintain identities. These identities may be on a national level and carefully controlled, such as in the Dutch and Lithuanian traditions, or they may be more informal and connected to the values of a specific group (often a minority), such as the Hobongan, Biblical Christians or Anabaptists. But in each case, language and the rules surrounding it are valued as essential pieces of what makes that community unique and separate from other similar communities.
2.4 Part 4: Judging Correctness: Practitioner Values and Variation
In the final section of this volume, the authors turn to prescriptive practitioners: those who create usage guides and employ prescriptive rules to copy edit published text. This section focuses on the complex values of the people who could be called ‘pure prescriptivists’, but whose motivations, values and practices show a much more nuanced approach to language. In each of the three chapters, the authors explicitly connect the values of practitioners to their actual practice.
In Chapter 13, Giuliana Russo examines the values and assumptions of H.W. Fowler, the author of the most influential usage guide, Dictionary of Modern English Usage. While Fowler has often been characterized as a prescriber extraordinaire, the entries in his guide show that his values deeply influenced his judgements. In particular, Russo shows that Fowler’s position in society (and his desired position as part of a privileged social class) comes out in his attitudes toward language. Fowler privileges the distinguishing linguistic characteristics of the well-connected upper middle class.
Chapter 14 tackles modern prescriptive values. Linda Pillière examines the importance of editors as enforcers of a linguistic standard. She compares the roles, attitudes and values of British editors and American editors in order to make larger arguments about national identities and notions of correctness. More importantly, however, she shows that editors are not a monolithic community determined to enforce grammatical rules. Rather, there are important distinctions between American editors and British editors and between older editors and younger editors. As with other communities, editorial actions toward language show the values of the editors, which (for the most part) tend toward improving prose rather than enforcing rules. And unlike the caricatures of editors, they are conscious of the complexities of language and are interested in improving clarity and concision rather than universally applying usage standards.
The final chapter in the volume continues the examination of copy editors. Jonathon Owen uses detailed empirical data to show the practices of professional and student copy editors. Similar to Pillière’s findings, Owen shows that