26.12.2013 Views

here - O - Universiteit Leiden

here - O - Universiteit Leiden

here - O - Universiteit Leiden

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Organisingcommitee<br />

eFourthPrescriptivism Conference2013is<br />

organisedattheUniversityof<strong>Leiden</strong>by<br />

IngridTieken-BoonvanOstade(LUCL)togetherwith<br />

TonvanHaa)en(LUCL),<br />

RikkaLänsisalmi(LUCL& LIAS),<br />

MaartenMous(LUCL)and<br />

JeroenW iedenhof(LUCL& LIAS)<br />

Conferencesupport<br />

EsrihBakker(LUCL)<br />

AnneRoseHaverkamp(LUCL)<br />

Onlineaddreses<br />

Website www.hum.leiden.edu/lucl/prescriptivism-conference<br />

Email prescriptivism-conference@hum.leidenuniv.nl


FourthConferenceonPrescriptivism<br />

Folowingthreehighlysuccesfulearlierconferences–She9eld(2003),Ragusa(2006)and<br />

Toronto(2009)–thenextConferenceonPrescriptivism ishostedin eNetherlandsby<br />

the<strong>Leiden</strong> UniversityCentreforLinguisticsin colaboration with the<strong>Leiden</strong> Institutefor<br />

AreaStudies,from 12to14June2013.<br />

e<strong>Leiden</strong>UniversityCentreforLinguistics(LUCL)engagesinteachingaswelasresearch<br />

in awidevarietyoflanguagesoftheworld,rangingfrom so-caled W estern languagestothe<br />

languagesofAfrica,Eurasiaand indigenousAm erica. e<strong>Leiden</strong> InstituteforAreaStudies<br />

(LIAS)representsm ultidisciplinaryapproachestothestudyofAsiaandtheM iddleEast.<br />

⇠eme<br />

Itisfrom thevariousresearch perspectivesem bodied in theseinstitutesthatweproposed<br />

thethem eoftheconference:PrescriptionandTraditioninLanguage.<br />

DiAerentlanguageshaveundergonediAerentstandardisationprocesesinthecourseof<br />

theirhistories.Forsom e,such asEnglish and Dutch,standard languagesdeveloped from<br />

theRenaisanceonwards,whileforotherlanguages,e.g.BasqueorIndonesian,standardisation<br />

wasinitiatedonlyrelativelyrecently.<br />

Whatevertheirdurationanddistribution,althesedevelopmentsreCectaperceivedneed<br />

forprescription,whichitselfderivesfrom linguistic,cultural,religious,ideological,political,<br />

educationalandothersources. esefactorso)enoccurincomplexcombinations;modern<br />

examplesaretheo9cialstatusofEnglishinCameroonandofM andarininTaiwan.<br />

Context<br />

isFourthConferenceonPrescriptivism isprecededbyapre-conferenceworkshop“Atitudesto<br />

prescriptivism”on 11June.Folowingtheconference,apublicsym posium entitled<br />

“W ieisdebaasoverdetaal?”(W homakestherulesinalanguage?)wilbeheldon15June.<br />

elatereventwilbemostlyinDutch.<br />

eorganisationofthisconferencehasbeensponsoredby<strong>Leiden</strong>UniversityFund(LUF),<br />

bythe<strong>Leiden</strong> UniversityCentreforLinguisticsand theNW O projectBridgingtheUnbridgeable.<br />

IngridTieken-BoonvanOstade<br />

TonvanHaa)en<br />

RikkaLänsisalmi<br />

MaartenMous<br />

JeroenW iedenhof<br />

<strong>Leiden</strong>,June2013


Pre-ConferenceWorkshop<br />

“A titudestoprescriptivism”<br />

OnTuesday11June2013,LUCLwilorganiseapre-conferenceworkshop. isworkshopis<br />

freeforalconferencedelegates.<br />

Pre-ConferenceWorkshoptheme<br />

Dra)softhepaperscirculateamongtheparticipantsoftheworkshopbeforehand. isway<br />

t<strong>here</strong>istim eforalparticipantsto read them aland prepareconstructivefeedbackforthe<br />

beneKtofthepapers’authors.<br />

isworkshopfeaturespapersthatinvestigatelanguage users’atitudes towards prescriptivism<br />

andothernorm ativeactions,prim arilyfrom thepointofview oft<strong>here</strong>cipients<br />

ofsuch actions,such asthegeneralpublic,institutionsand speciKcprofesionalgroups<br />

(linguists,journalists,educators,bloggers,etc.). efocusismainlyonEnglish,butproposalsonotherlanguagesarealsowelcome.<br />

eformatisfolows:t<strong>here</strong>are30-minuteslots,eachwith10minutesforashortpresentationofthepaper,folowedby20minutesfordiscu<br />

sionandfeedback.<br />

Pre-ConferenceWorkshoporganisers<br />

RobinStraaijer<br />

CarmenEbner<br />

ViktorijaKostadinova<br />

MoranaLukaN<br />

Pre-ConferenceWorkshopcontactdetails<br />

Website www.hum.leiden.edu/lucl/prescriptivism-conference<br />

Email prescriptivism-conference@hum.leidenuniv.nl


PROGRAMMESCHEDULE<br />

Tuesday11June<br />

14.00-17.00 Registration,room :Lipsius001<br />

Wednesday12June<br />

8.30-10.00 Registration,room :Lipsius001<br />

Pre-conferenceWorkshop:“A titudestoPrescriptivism”<br />

Venue:Lipsius,Room 148<br />

Conference:“PrescriptionandTraditioninLanguage”<br />

10.00-10.15 Conferenceopening<br />

byProf.C.J.J.M .Stolker,rectormagni4cusandpresidentoftheUniversityof<strong>Leiden</strong><br />

room :Lipsius005<br />

Plenary<br />

10.15-11.15<br />

CarolPercy,Aristocraticin↵uenceandtheEnglishprescriptivetradition:LordChester⇠eldandhisa⇡erlives<br />

Chair:IngridTieken-BoonvanOstade;room:Lipsius005<br />

11.15-11.45 COFFEE/TEA<br />

SesionsA & B MORNINGSESSION A,LIPSIUS005,CAROLPERCY<br />

11.45-12.15 HenriLePrieult,W hatdid custom m ean forthe4rst<br />

Englishgrammarians:afriendorafoe?<br />

12.15-12.45 NataliaGuermanova,A ePrincipleofIconicityin<br />

EnglishPrescriptiveGrammar<br />

MORNINGSESSION B,LIPSIUS148,R IKKA LÄNSISALMI<br />

KyokoTakashiWilkersonand DouglasWilkerson,<br />

DemocracyofSigns:PrescriptionandLibertyin<br />

JapaneseNam es<br />

12.45-14.00 LUNCH


(Wed 12 June – continued)<br />

Sessions A & B 1 ST AFTERNOON SESSION A, LIPSIUS 005, MASSIMO STURIALE<br />

14.00-14.30 Don Chapman, Prescriptive rules as a tradition in the<br />

United States<br />

14.30-15.00 Matthijs Smits, ‘Garnering’ Respect?: The Emergence<br />

of Authority in the American Usage Tradition<br />

1 ST AFTERNOON SESSION B, LIPSIUS 148, GIJSBERT RUTTEN<br />

Heimir Freyr Viðarsson, The rise of standard Icelandic<br />

syntax in the 19th century: rewriting history<br />

15.00-15.30 COFFEE/TEA<br />

Session<br />

2 ND AFTERNOON SESSION, LIPSIUS 005, ROBIN STRAAIJER<br />

15.30-16.00 Gijsbert Rutten and Rik Vosters, Negation and<br />

prescription in the history of Dutch<br />

16.00-16.30 Lars Hinrichs, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi and Axel Bohmann,<br />

Unusually strong impact of prescriptive rules on<br />

language use: The case of object-function restrictive<br />

relativizers in written standard English<br />

17.00-19.00 DRINKS, VENUE: SCHELTEMA LEIDEN, MARTSTEEG 1<br />

Thursday 13 June<br />

Plenary<br />

9.30-10.30<br />

Henning Klöter, “What is correct Chinese?” revisited<br />

Chair: Jeroen Wiedenhof; room: Lipsius 028<br />

10.30-11.00 COFFEE/TEA


(7 u13June–continued)<br />

SesionsA & B MORNINGSESSION A,LIPSIUS028,D ICK SMAKMAN<br />

11.00-11.30 MasimoSturiale,PedagogicalPrescriptivism in Early<br />

20th-centuryCo respondenceLanguageCourses.A<br />

CaseStudy:IlPoliglotaM oderno(1905-1907)<br />

11.30-12.00 KatjaLochtman,Prescriptivism and sociolinguistic<br />

competenceinGermanasaForeignLanguageatUniversity<br />

12.00-12.30 DominikBanhold,Germ an SchoolGram m arsas<br />

Norm SetingLanguageAuthoritiesinNationalistic<br />

Germanyofthe19thCentury<br />

12.30-14.00 LUNCH<br />

SesionsA & B 1 ST AFTERNOON SESSION A,LIPSIUS003,D ON CHAPMAN<br />

14.00-14.30 GabrielaE.Dima,Prescription and Tradition in the<br />

RomanianLiteraryLanguage<br />

MORNINGSESSION B,LIPSIUS148,W ENDYAYRES-BENNETT<br />

SpirosA.Moschonas,Non-uniform standards:A e<br />

caseofStandardM odernGreek<br />

ArtoMustajoki,Chalengesin thestandardization of<br />

contemporaryRu sian<br />

NadiaPetrova,A com parativeanalysisofRu sian and<br />

Englishusageguidesfrom thetwentiethandtwenty-<br />

4rstcenturies<br />

1 ST AFTERNOON SESSION B,LIPSIUS148,RIK VOSTERS<br />

HannaRutkowska,Etym ologicalspelingin thirteen<br />

editionsofTheKalenderofShepherdes<br />

14.30-15.00 CharloteBrewer,Poets,gram m arsand dictionaries DanieleCandel,Prescription and tradition,from the<br />

FrenchDictionnairedel’Académie(1635-)totheoL cial<br />

Frenchlanguageenrichmentproces(-2013)<br />

15.00-15.30 RitaQueirozdeBarros,“A higherstandard ofco rectnesthanisquitedesirable”:Linguisticprescriptionin<br />

Ostade,A ebatleofprescriptivism :FrancevsEngland<br />

WendyAyres-Bennetand IngridTieken-Boonvan<br />

Dickens’sjournals


(Thu 13 June – continued)<br />

15.30-16.00 COFFEE/TEA<br />

Session<br />

2 ND AFTERNOON SESSION, LIPSIUS 003, FELIX AMEKA<br />

16.00-16.30 Kazuhiko Nakae, From Prescriptivism to Purism in<br />

Multiglossic Arabic<br />

16.30-17.00 Loreta Vaicekauskiene, Joining scholarship and state<br />

standardization ideology: prescription as Soviet inheritance<br />

in post-soviet Lithuania<br />

19.00-23.00 CONFERENCE DINNER (registration required)<br />

Friday 14 June<br />

Plenary<br />

9.00-10.00<br />

Felix Ameka, The uselessness of the useful: between prescriptivism and practice<br />

Chair: Florian Coulmas; room: Lipsius 005<br />

10.00-10.30 COFFEE/TEA<br />

Sessions A & B MORNING SESSION A, LIPSIUS 005, MAARTEN MOUS MORNING SESSION B, LIPSIUS 148, DANIELLE CANDEL<br />

10.30-11.00 Miren Lourdes Oñederra, Basque pronunciation:<br />

dialectal richness vs. strength of the Standard in a<br />

minority language<br />

Mark Kaunisto, Guidebooks on English usage in light<br />

of corpus evidence: are the entries truly warranted?<br />

11.00-11.30 Robin Straaijer, Perspectives on Prescriptivism: The<br />

reception of English usage guides<br />

11.30-12.00 Pieter Duijf, Towards a modern Frisian Standard Viktorija Kostadinova, The Cyberstate of Language: Popular<br />

Attitudes to English Language Use on the Internet<br />

12.00-13.30 LUNCH


(Fri14June–cont.)<br />

SesionsA & B AFTERNOON SESSION A,LIPSIUS005,NATALIAGUERMANOVA AFTERNOON SESSION B,LIPSIUS148,H ENNING KLÖTER<br />

13.30-14.00 DickSmakman,Internationalde4nitionsofthe<br />

standardlanguage<br />

14.00-14.30 GiedriusTamaDeviEius,A eideologicalcontextsof<br />

languagestandardization in them edia<br />

14.30-15.00 KanavililRajagopalan,A edescriptivelinguist’s<br />

dilemmaswhenconfrontedwiththechalengeof<br />

languageplanning<br />

15.00-15.30 COFFEE/TEA<br />

Plenary<br />

15.30-16.30<br />

MartinGil,A ediscom fortofstrangers:nostalgia,<br />

ideologyand defenceoftheEnglish speech com munity<br />

DaceStrelFvica-ODiGa,Hum an-oriented prescriptivism,language-orientedprescriptivism,eror-oriented<br />

prescriptivism:somecros-culturaldiPerences<br />

FlorianCoulmas,Prescriptivism andwritingsystems<br />

Chair:TonvanHaaQen;room:Lipsius005<br />

16.30-17.00 Conferencecloses:Prof.T.vanHaaQen,director<strong>Leiden</strong>UniversityCentreforLinguistics,room:Lipsius005<br />

Saturday15June<br />

Publicsymposium (primarilyinDutch):“W ieisdebaasoverdetaal?”(W homakestherulesinalanguage?)<br />

Venue:KleinAuditorium,Academiegebouw


Plenaries<br />

in chronologicalorder


Wednesday12June,10.15-11.15<br />

CarolPercy,UniversityofToronto<br />

Aristocraticin↵uenceandtheEnglishprescriptivetradition:<br />

LordChester⇠eldandhisa⇡erlives<br />

In thisplenary,Iusethe!gureofPhilip Dorm erStanhope,thefourth EarlofChester!eld<br />

(1694–1773),to explorethesigni!canceofaristocratsto eighteenth-century English prescriptivism<br />

.<br />

LordChester!eldappearsinseveralaccountsaboutsomeearlydevelopmentsofthe<br />

tradition.In som eofthem ,hehasclearprestigeforsom esoon-to-bein2uentialcodi!ers.It<br />

iswelknown,forinstance,thatSam uelJohnson dedicated thePlan(1747)forwhatwasto<br />

behisfamousDictionary(1755)to Chester!eld.M oreover,although theelocutionistand<br />

futureorthoepist,theIrishm an 6 om asSheridan deliberatelydid notdedicatehisplan for<br />

British Education (1756)to Chester!eld,Lacking hispermision,Sheridan nevertheles<br />

beganhisplanwithan“Addres”toChester!eld,inhiscapacityastheformerSecretaryof<br />

StateforIreland(1745–46).<br />

YetotheraccountsfeatureChester!eldasasymbolofaristocrats’decliningculturallinguisticin2uence.AsSheridanwasseekingthelord’ssupportforhisplantostandardize<br />

spoken English,Johnson had becom e fam ously estranged from his prospective patron:<br />

indeed,theDictionary’ssupportby such bookselersasRobertD odsley ratherthan by patronsorinstitutionsisregardedasarepresentativedevelopm<br />

entin theprogre sofprintculture,theshi?<br />

to “m arket-driving book-m aking”.Johnson’srejection ofChester!eld wasin<br />

partareactiontosomeesaysinDodsley’speriodical eWorld,in which Chester!eld had<br />

expresedmockanxietyaboutthein2uenceon theforthcomingDictionaryofwom en and<br />

oforallanguage.Infact,whenitwaspublishedthedictionarywasinnovativelyilustrated<br />

withliteraryquotations.<br />

In oneoftheseesaysfor eWorld,Lord Chester!eld had also contrasted whathe<br />

described aspedanticand politespelings.6 isexaggerated opposition between elitemen<br />

and women wasre2ected severaldecadeslater,when somefemalereaderscriticized the<br />

masculine aristocratic valuesexpre sed in Chester!eld’spersonalletersupon the leters’<br />

posthumouspublicationin1774.Intheseleters,writenduringthe1740sandearly1750s<br />

tohisilegitim ateson,Chester!eldem phasizedthefactthatlanguageconstructsratherthan<br />

re2ectsone’sim ageandstatus.Renaisanceconductbookswouldhavem adesim ilarpoints,<br />

butinthispaperIam keentocontextualizeChester!elddeeplyandbroadlyinthe1740s,a<br />

periodpredatingtheproliferationofprescriptivegrammarsandthusseeminglykeytothe<br />

developmentofthetradition.Ishalalsodraw onandfurtherpublicizerecentresearchon<br />

such topicsasprestigein languageand historyand on t<strong>here</strong>lation ofhigh socialclasto<br />

corpus-basedaccountsoflanguagevariationandchange.


6ursday13June,9.30-10.30<br />

HenningKlöter,Georg-August-Universität,Gö tingen<br />

“W hatisco rectChinese?”revisited<br />

YuenRenChao(1892–1982)wasoneofthemosteminentChineselinguistsandlanguage<br />

plannersofthe20 th century.In hisearlycareer,heplayed an im portantrolein thedevelopmentanddocumentationofastandardMandarinpronunciation.HislandmarkGrammar<br />

ofSpoken Chinese,published in 1968,is am ong the m ost-frequently cited gram m atical<br />

overviewsofMandarin.OneofChao’sleserknowncontributionsisabriefarticleentitled<br />

“W hatIsCo rectChinese?,”published in 1961 in the Journalofthe Am erican Oriental<br />

Society.In thisarticle,Chao re2ectsupon co rectpronunciation,co recttranslationsof<br />

foreign wordsand propernam es,and co rectne sin gram m ar.Hisanalysiscenterson the<br />

early 20 th century when,forthe !rsttime in Chinese history,a nationalpronunciation<br />

standardwascodi!ed.Inthe!rstpartofmypresentation,Iwilgiveabriefintroductionto<br />

Chao’sworkinthecontextoflanguageplanninginthisperiod.Inthesecondpart,Iwil<br />

apply Chao’shypothesesconcerning “co rectChinese”to cu rentlanguagetrendsin the<br />

Chinese-speakingworld.IwilarguethatlanguageplanninginChinaa?er1949hasprovided<br />

much clearerguidelinesagainstwhich co rectnesin variousareasoflanguageuse<br />

canbemeasured.Atthesametime,however,prescriptiveguidelinesandtheirimplementation<br />

aresubjectto variousrenegotiationsand chalenges.6 esearediscu sed in thecontext<br />

ofthemarginalization ofsouthern varieties,theinternationalization ofChineselanguage<br />

teachingandagrowingdependenceofyoungspeakerson new m edia.


Friday14June,9.00-10.00<br />

FelixAmeka,<strong>Leiden</strong> University<br />

euselesnesoftheuseful:betwenprescriptivism andpractice<br />

Havinganorm maybeausefulideaandhavinganideologyaboutappropriateandcorect<br />

languageusem aybeausefulidealbutwhen itcom estolinguisticpractice,thisisusele s.I<br />

wildiscuscasesofvariousideologiescenteringonprescriptioningrammartolinguistic<br />

purism regardingisuesofcodeswitching,boroweditemsandgenerationaldiJerencesin<br />

languageuse,w<strong>here</strong>olderpeopleperceiveyoungeronesasnotspeakingwel.6 eseisues<br />

wilbediscusedinthecontextofexperiencesinlanguagedocumentationinmultilingual<br />

setingsinW estAfrica.


FlorianCoulmas,Germ an InstituteforJapaneseStudies,Tokyo<br />

Prescriptivism andwritingsystems<br />

Friday14June,15.30-16.30<br />

InthispaperIexam inetheroleofwritingsystem sinprescribingrulesoflanguage.<br />

Linguisticprescriptivism cannotbesensiblyanalysedwithoutaproperunderstandingof<br />

t<strong>here</strong>lationshipbetweenwritingandlanguagebecausewritingisboththeprincipal<br />

instrum entandtheobjectoflanguagecultivation.Setingnorm sandstipulatingusagefor<br />

writenlanguageismorecommonandmoreeJectivethanforspeech,andw<strong>here</strong>acorect<br />

pronunciation(orthoepy)isprescribeditismoreo?enlaiddowninwritingratherthan<br />

entrustedtooraltradition.However,t<strong>here</strong>lationshipbetweenwritingandspeechisa<br />

simplem appingrelationbetweengraphicalandphoneticunitsinexceptionalcasesonly.<br />

Becauseofthehistoricityoflanguageandtheasynchronouschangeofspeechandwriting<br />

thisrelationshipistypicalym oreorle scom plex.6 israisesseveralquestions:<br />

1.how diJerentwritingsystemscanbeutilizedforpurposesofprescribingusage;<br />

2.whatitisthatcanbeprescribed;<br />

3.how writingsystemsaresubjectedtoprescribednorms;and<br />

4.how prescriptivenormsthatrefertothegraphicmakeupofthesystem interactwith<br />

thoseconcerningrelationsbetweengraphicsignsandunitsoflanguage.<br />

6esequestionswilbediscusedfrom acomparativeperspectivetakingvariouswriting<br />

system sintoconsiderationinordertoelucidatehow prescriptivelinguisticnorm sare<br />

aJectedbywriting–andviceversa.


Abstracts<br />

in alphabeticalorder


WendyAyres-BennetandIngrid Tieken-BoonvanOstade,UniversityofCam bridge(UK)andUniversityof<br />

<strong>Leiden</strong>( eNetherlands)<br />

⇡ebatleofprescriptivism:FrancevsEngland<br />

6eliteratureonprescriptivism frequentlyasertsthesameapparenttruismsaboutprescriptivism<br />

inFranceandEngland.Atthebeginningofthe20 th century,thegreathistorian<br />

oftheFrenchlanguage,FerdinandBrunot(1966: I,4)claimedthat‘6 ereignofgrammar<br />

[ .]hasbeenlongerandm oretyrannicalinFrancethaninanyothercountry’,andthisidea<br />

wasrepeatedbyRodneySampsonin1993,whoclaimed‘Fewlanguageshavebeenexposed<br />

in such asustainedwaytoprescriptivein2uencesasFrench.Forthepastfourcenturies,<br />

oPcialandunoPcialbodiesandindividualshavesoughttodirectthelanguage,andmany<br />

ofthesehavecommanded,andcontinuetocommand,veryconsiderableatentionand<br />

favouram ongsttheFrench’.<br />

Discusionofprescriptivism inFrancetheno?encentresontheworkofthe17 th -<br />

centurygrammariansandremarqueurs,theroleoftheAcadémieFrançaiseandotherbodies<br />

concernedwiththeFrenchlanguage,andtheimpactoftwentieth-centurylinguisticlegislation<br />

(Ayres-Bennet2010).AsforEngland,theFrench Academ yisusualyheld upasan<br />

exampleofwhatwouldbeneededtoregulatetheEnglishlanguage:thiswasthecaseinthe<br />

early18 th century,butasim ilaratitudecan stilbefound am ongthegeneralpublictoday.<br />

Inarecentpublication,HenryHitchingswrotethat‘English-speakersaretouchy<br />

aboutquestionsofusage’(2011:4).Itisinterestingtonotethathegoesontoclaim:‘Touchines[.]isnotuncommonamongspeakersofotherlanguages,butEnglishisthemostcontestedlanguage’.AretheEnglishnow<br />

becom ingm oreprescriptiveaboutlebon usagethan<br />

theFrenchinspiteofthelackofanAcadem y?Andistheenorm ouspopularityofusage<br />

guidesintheUK today(Bu seandTieken-BoonvanOstade2011)symptomaticofthisrise<br />

in prescriptivism ?<br />

Inthispaperwewouldliketocom parethediJerenthistoricalandsocioculturalcontextsin<br />

whichprescriptivism arosein FranceandBritain,leadingtodiJerentapproachesto<br />

thesubject(e.g.t<strong>here</strong>lativeim portanceofoP cialbodiesandprivateinitiatives),andthen<br />

examinewhetherthisresultsinprescriptivism beingmanifestedindiJerentwaystoday.<br />

References:<br />

Ayres-Bennet,Wendy(2010).“SpeakingCorectly:Purism andPrescriptivism inFrance”.Festival<br />

ofIdeasLecture,CambridgeOctober2010.<br />

Buse,UlrichandIngridTieken-BoonvanOstade(2011).“TowardsaCorpusofPrescriptivism”.<br />

PaperpresentedattheHelsinkiCorpusFestival,Helsinki(Finland),September/October<br />

2011.<br />

Brunot,Ferdinand(1966)Histoiredelalanguefrançaise,vol.3.Paris:A.Colin.<br />

Hitchings,Henry(2011). eLanguageWars.AHistoryofProperEnglish.London:John M u ray.<br />

Sampson,Rodney(ed.)(1993).AuthorityandtheFrenchLanguage.Münster:Nodus.


DominikBanhold,Departm entofGerm an Linguistics,UniversityofW ürzburg(Germ any)<br />

GermanSchoolGrammarsasNorm SetingLanguage<br />

AuthoritiesinNationalisticGermanyofthe19 th Century<br />

Inthe19 th centuryGerm anydeveloped from alooselypost-Napoleonicfederation ofup to<br />

39membersintoonenationleadbyanemperor.Duringthecenturyt<strong>here</strong>wasaconstant<br />

riseinnationalism whichwasnotrestrictedtopoliticalidealslikeliberalism and<br />

constitutionalism buthadahugeimpactonthedevelopmentoftheGermanlanguagethat<br />

cannotbeoverestimated.Asitalwayshasbeen(e.g.modernEurope),thelongingforone<br />

nationbroughtuptheproblem of‘one’languagespokenbythewholenation.6 eneedfor<br />

prescriptionbecameobvious(s.Polenz1999:232).Norm bookslikegrammarsand<br />

languageguidesbecam everyproductivein thattim e(s.Klein 2003).In research,aspecial<br />

interestwaspaidtothein2uenceofsuch norm bookson theevolvingofaGerm an “leading<br />

variety”(s.Reichmann1990:141)andtothehistoryofthestigmatizationofspeci!c<br />

grammaticalforms(s.Davies/Langer2006).<br />

Inm ypresentationIwilfocusonaspecialkindofnorm books,nam elyschool<br />

grammars.W hatpositionwere19 th centuryschoolgram m arssupposed totakein the<br />

standardisationprocesoftheGerm anlanguage?6 ereisnoempiricalstudythatwouldbe<br />

abletoiluminatetheroleofgrammaticalvariantsinschoolgrammars.Basedonmy<br />

doctoraldisertationprojectIwildiscu sthreequestions:<br />

a)W hat(quantitative)roledomorphologicalvariantsplayinGermanschoolgrammarsof<br />

the19 th century?<br />

b)How arethesevariantspresented?W hatinformationisgiven?<br />

c)How arethevariantsevaluated?W hatprescriptivestrategiesareused?<br />

Givinganswerstothesequestionsisacrucialpartof!guringouttheimportanceofschool<br />

grammarsnotonlyforthestandardisationprocesoftheGermanlanguagebutforthe<br />

pasingonofcertainmorphologicalvariants,fortheformationofevaluationtraditionsand<br />

thein2uencethatpoliticalandculturaldevelopm entshaveontheim partm entoflanguage<br />

(norm )knowledge.6 elinkingoft<strong>here</strong>sultstocu rentlanguageteachingis!nalyopento<br />

discu sion.<br />

References:<br />

Davies,Winifred/NilsLanger(2006):6 eMakingofBadLanguage.LayLinguisticStigmatisationsinGerm<br />

an:PastandPresent.Frankfurt:PeterLang.<br />

Klein,WolfPeter(2003):SprachlicheZweifelsfälealslinguistischerGegenstand.ZurEinführung<br />

in ein verge senes6 em aderSprachwisenscha?.Linguistikonline16.<br />

Polenz,Petervon(1999):DeutscheSprachgeschichtevom SpätmitelalterbiszurGegenwart.19.<br />

und20.Jahrhundert(Vol.3).Berlin:deGruyter.<br />

Reichmann,Oskar(1990):SpracheohneLeitvarietätvs.SprachemitLeitvarietät.In:WernerBesch<br />

(ed.):DeutscheSprachgeschichte.Grundlagen,M ethoden,Perspektiven.Frankfurt:Peter<br />

Lang.


RitaQueirozdeBaros,FacultyofLetersoftheUniversityofLisbon (Portugal)<br />

“A higherstandardofcorrectne sthanisquitedesirable”:<br />

LinguisticprescriptioninDickens’sjournals<br />

6oughgeneralyasociatedwiththegrammaticaltraditionofthe18 th century,thebelief<br />

thatsom eform soflanguagearem oreco rectthanothers,whichJ.andL.M ilroyhave<br />

term edtheideologyofstandardization (1999),waspervasivein 19 th centuryBritain (Beal,<br />

2009).<br />

CharlesDickensworkedinthisprescriptiveseting.Itwasagainstthisbackground<br />

thathem asterlyexploiteddia-,socio-andidiolectalvariation.Togetherwithhisabilityto<br />

“deployeveryavailablelinguisticresource”(Ingham ,2008),thistraitofhisstylehasearned<br />

him theepithetsoflinguist(Quirk,1974)andsociolinguist(Pou sa,1999).<br />

ButnovelsarenotthesingletestimonyofDickens’smetalinguisticinterest.His<br />

activityasajournalistprovidesevidenceofthesamesort,ashintedbyBoltonandCrystal<br />

(1969:1)andcon!rm edinaprelim inaryanalysisofthewritingsontheEnglishlanguage<br />

publishedinHouseholdWordsandAltheYearRound(Ba ros,2012),twoweeklym agazines<br />

directedbyDickensandrecentlymadeavailableinDickensJournalsOnline(Drew,2012).<br />

6ispaperwilrevisittheabovementionedperiodicals,withtheparticularaimsof<br />

evaluatingt<strong>here</strong>levanceofprescriptivistsandprescriptivism inarticlesdevotedtothe<br />

Englishlanguage,andofdiscusingtheirexpectedlycomplexapproach(es)tosuchisue.<br />

6isanalysiswilbearinmind(i)Percy’sconclusionsonthetiesbetweenthepublishingof<br />

review periodicalsandtheriseofprescriptivism (2009)and(i)Dickens’ssophisticated<br />

senseoflinguisticappropriatenesandsubscriptionofthepo sibilityof“ahigherstandard<br />

ofco rectnesthanisquitedesirable”(Payn,1857).<br />

References:<br />

Baros,R.Q.de(2012)“DickensonEnglish:Somenon-!ctionalevidence.”Paperpresentedinthe<br />

conferenceCharlesDickensandhisTime–UniversidadeNovadeLisboa,18-20June.<br />

Beal,J.(2009)“6 reeHundredYearsofPrescriptivism (andCounting)”.InCurentIsuesinLate<br />

ModernEnglish,ed.I.Tieken-Boon van Ostadeand W .van derW urJ.Bern:PeterLang,35-<br />

55.<br />

Bolton,W.F.& D.Crystal(1969)EsaysbyLinguistsandMenofLeters.Vol2.Cam bridge:CUP<br />

Drew,J.(dir.)(2012)DickensJournalsOnline.(www.djo.org.uk)<br />

Ingham ,P.(2008)“6 eLanguageofDickens”.In ACompaniontoCharlesDickens,ed.David<br />

Paroisien.Oxford:BlackwelPublishingLtd,doi:10.1002/9780470691908.ch8.<br />

Milroy,J.&L.Milroy(1999)AuthorityinLanguage.InvestigatingStandardEnglish(3rded).<br />

London& New York:Routledge.<br />

Payn,J.(1857)OurP’sandQ’s.HouseholdWords,XVI:388,204-207.<br />

Percy,C.(2009)“PeriodicalReviewsandtheRiseofPrescriptivism:theMonthly(1749–1844)and<br />

CriticalReview(1756–1817)intheEighteenthCentury.”InCurentIsuesinLateModern<br />

English.117-150.<br />

Pou sa,P.(1999)“DickensasaSociolinguist:DialectinDavidCopper!eld”.InWritinginNonstandardEnglish,ed.I.Taavitsainen,etal.Amsterdam<br />

&Philadelphia:JohnBenjam ins,27-44.<br />

Quirk,R.(1974)“CharlesDickens,Linguist”,in eLinguistandtheEnglishLanguage.London:<br />

EdwardArnold,1-36.


CharloteBrewer,HertfordColege,OxfordUniversity(UK)<br />

Poets,grammarsanddictionaries<br />

6erelationshipbetweengreat(or‘great’)literatureandlanguagehaso?enbeenproblematic,andhasnotinfrequentlyraisedquestionsrelatingtoprescriptivism<br />

andco rectnes.<br />

SometimesithasseemedthatcanonicalauthorshavehadadeterminingeJectonthe<br />

Englishlanguage,onewhichotheruserswoulddoweltofolow.6 usHoccleveclaimedin<br />

hisRegementofPrinces(c.1412)thatChaucerwasthe‘!rstefyndere[i.e.inventor]ofour<br />

fairelangage’,andLydgate(LifeofOurLady,c.1416)explained thatthenatureofthis<br />

contributionlayinthespeci!calyliterarycharacteristicsofChaucer’slanguage:<br />

AndekemymaisterChaucerisygrave<br />

6enobleRethor,poeteofBrytayne<br />

6atworthywasthelaurertohaue<br />

Ofpoetrye,andthepalmeateyne<br />

6atmade!rste,todistileandtorayne<br />

6egoldedewe,dropes,ofspecheandeloquence<br />

Intoourtunge,thurghhisexcelence<br />

Andfondethe2oures,!rsteofRhetoryke<br />

OurRudespeche,onlytoenlumyne<br />

6atinourtunge,wasnevrenoonhym like.<br />

Hundredsofyearslater,J.H.Newmanalsoobservedthatgreatwriterscrucialyin2uenced<br />

thelanguageofeveryoneelse,describinghow the‘sayings’of‘agreatauthor.pa sinto<br />

proverbsamonghispeople,andhisphrasesbecomehouseholdwordsandidiomsoftheir<br />

dailyspeech,whichisteselatedwiththerichfragmentsofhislanguage’(Ideaofa<br />

University,1873).<br />

Atthesametime,however,thoseconcernedwithmakinggrammarsanddictionaries<br />

haveo?encriticizedthelanguageofsuchwriters.JohnsonquotedPope,Drydenand<br />

Addisonhundredsoftimesinhisdictionary,butcensoredthem forwhathecaled<br />

‘Barbarous,orim pure,wordsand expre sions’;Lowth repeatedlycited Shakespeare,M ilton,<br />

Pope,Addison,Prior,andDryden(amongothers)inhisGrammarasexamplesofpoor<br />

usage(asdiscu sedinstudiesbyPercyandTieken-BoonvanOstade);andtheOED,<br />

althoughitseditorJ.A.H.M u rayspeci!ed‘althegreatEnglishwritersofalages’asthe<br />

mainsourcesforthatgreatdictionary’sstockofover!vemilionquotations,occasionaly<br />

markedexamplesoftheirusageas‘catachresticoreroneous’,proscribingthem witha<br />

specialsymbol(theparagraphm ark).6 ispaperexam inessom efeaturesofthewaythat<br />

recordersoflanguagehaverespondedprescriptivelyorproscriptivelytotheworksof<br />

creativewriters,lookingbothatwhattheyhavesaidaboutsuchwritersandathow they<br />

haveregisteredthelanguageofpoets,novelistsetcintheirownworks.


UlrichBu se,M artin LutherUniversity,Hale-W itenberg(Germ any)<br />

⇡enativespeakerisdeadvs.⇡enativespeakerisalive:<br />

WhosenormsdoELFsneed?<br />

TheglobalspreadofEnglishhasledtotheconceptionofanumberofmodelsaccountingfor<br />

them anyform sandfunctionsofEnglishintheworld(seeM cArthur1998:Ch.4).Even<br />

thoughitisabitoutdated,theKachruvianm odelwithitsso-caledthreeconcentriccirclescan<br />

serveasastartingpoint.Traditionaly,intermsofnormsthem othertonguecountries,w<strong>here</strong><br />

Englishisspokenasanativelanguage[ENL]areregardedasnorm-providing,thecountries<br />

andareas,w<strong>here</strong>Englishhasthestatusofasecondlanguage[ESL]asnorm-developing,and<br />

thecountriesoftheexpandingcircle,inwhichEnglishistaughtasaforeignlanguage[EFL],as<br />

norm-dependant.<br />

Gnutzmann(2012:315)observesthatwhiletheconceptofStandardEnglishhas<br />

beencriticizedbylinguistsandeducationalistsintheUK,“itsusefulnesasamodelforthe<br />

teachingofEnglish asaForeign Language(EFL)wasnotaJectedbysuch considerations,and<br />

wasverymuchtakenforgranteduntilafewyearsago.”<br />

However,overthepasttento!?eenyears,academicinterestintheuseofEnglishasa<br />

linguafranca[ELF]hasgrown.6 edevelopm entofaspecialcorpus,caledVOICE[= Vienna-<br />

OxfordInternationalCorpusofEnglish],byBarbaraSeidlhofer,andarecentlyestablished<br />

academicjournal[=JournalofEnglishasaLinguaFrancawitha!rstisueinMarch2012]<br />

testifytotheliveline softhisnew researcharea.In thefram eworkofthisresearch,doubtshave<br />

beenraisedastowhetherStandardEnglishandhencenativespeakernormsarestilvalid<br />

modelsforEFL(andESL).<br />

Inarecentarticle,BarbaraSeidlhofer(2012:79)discu sesasoneveryprom inentexampletheuseoftheprepositionaboutfolowingtheverbdiscus,!ndingthatsuch<br />

aconstruction<br />

isusedwidelyin ELFinteractions,butthatdictionariesandgram m arspurportingto<br />

addresadvancedlearnersofEnglishandtheirneeds,“includingthosebasedon‘international<br />

corpora’,emphasizehow eroneousthisusageis.6 eOxfordAdvancedLearner’sDictionary<br />

oJersa‘Help’noteundertheentrydiscusanddriveshomethemesagegraphicalywith<br />

strike-outfont:Youcannotsay‘discu saboutsom ething’:‘Idiscu sed aboutm yproblem with<br />

myparents’.”<br />

6epointofdepartureofthepaperathandistoinvestigateaselectionofrecentlearner’s<br />

dictionariesandgrammarsandtoscrutinizehow theyhandlesimilarcasestodiscovertheir<br />

practice(andtheunderlyingnorms)andthenask(andposiblyanswer)thefolowing<br />

questions:<br />

–Couldandshouldtheyimplementother(i.e.non-native)norms?<br />

–Canthesebeabstractedasastatisticalnorm from acorpussuchasVOICE?<br />

–How shouldadictionaryentryre2ectingELF-normslooklike?<br />

References:<br />

Gnutzmann,Claus(2012):“TeachingEnglishinaGlobalisedWorld:DoesitMakeaDiJerence?”In:<br />

Schröder/Bu se/Schneider,eds.,315-327.<br />

McArthur,Tom (1998): eEnglishLanguages.Cam bridge:CUP.<br />

Schröder,Anne,UlrichBu seandRalfSchneider,eds.(2012):Codi⇠cation,CanonsandCuricula.<br />

DescriptionandPrescriptioninLanguageandLiterature.Bielefeld:Aisthesis.<br />

Seidlhofer,Barbara(2012):“6 eChalengeofEnglishasaLinguaFranca”.In:Anglistik:International<br />

JournalofEnglishStudies23.1:73-86.


DanieleCandel,CNRS(H TL)/UniversitéParisDiderot–Paris7,Paris(France)<br />

Prescriptionandtradition,from theFrenchDictionnairedel’Académie<br />

(1635-)totheo8 cialFrenchlanguageenrichm entproce s(-2013)<br />

Linguisticdiversityandlinguisticenrichmenthavebeenproblematicforgrammariansand<br />

linguistsinvolved in lexicographyorterm inology,and forgovernm entsaswel.Franceisa<br />

goodexample,astheFrenchAcademy(“Académiefrançaise”)wasoPcialyestablishedin<br />

1635withthetaskofactingasanoPcialauthoritywithregardtolanguage.Animportant<br />

isuein com m unication being,attheendofthe20 th and thebeginningofthe21 st centuries,<br />

thedevelopm entofscienti!candtechnicallanguage,oP cialrecom m endationsdealingwith<br />

usageofscienti!candtechnicalwordsareregularlybeingpublishedbytheFrenchState.<br />

6eserecommendationsorprescriptionsoriginatefrom the“Frenchlanguageenrichment<br />

proces”(“procesusd’enrichisementdelalanguefrançaise”,1996-),inwhichspecialistsof<br />

diJerent!eldsandlinguistsacttogether,mostlyinordertoproposeandrecommend<br />

FrenchwordsinsteadofAnglo-americanloan-words,inanoPcialmanner.Itis<br />

noteworthythatsomeactorsofthe“Frenchlanguageenrichmentproces”team arealso<br />

partoftheteam helpingconstructingtheFrenchAcademyDictionary(Dictionnairede<br />

l’Académ ie)inits9 th edition.Itisalsoworth underliningthattheAcadem yonlyrecently<br />

begantogiveexplicitprescriptions,inits9 th ongoingedition;theAcadem yeven publishes<br />

theseprescriptionsseparately.InpointingouttheevolutionoftheDictionnairede<br />

l’Académ iein itsprescriptivetradition,weplan todiscu safew resem blancesbetween the<br />

FrenchAcademictradition(1635-)andtheFrenchlanguageenrichmentproces(1996-)<br />

andanalyset<strong>here</strong>spectiveprescriptionactivitiesofbothinstitutions,aswelastheirresults.<br />

WewilalsoshowhowtheoldFrenchprescriptivetraditioniscontinuouslyimproving.<br />

References:<br />

Candel,D.,2010,«Dénommeretdé!nirenlexicographieetenterminologie»,L’Archicube9,114-<br />

121.<br />

Caput,J.-P.,1986,L'Académiefrançaise,Co l.«Q uesais-je?»,Paris,PUF.<br />

FranceTerme,TouslestermespubliésauJournaloL cielparlaCommisiongénéralede<br />

term inologie,htp:/franceterme.culture.fr/FranceTerme/<br />

Quemada,G.,1997,«Neuvièmeédition1986-1992,PréfaceetAvertisement»,dansB.Quemada,<br />

dir.,LesPréfacesduDictionnairedel’Académiefrançaise1694-1992,Paris,Cham pion,453-<br />

508.<br />

Rey,C.,2011,«Les‘Recommandationsnormatives’delaneuvièmeéditionduDictionnairede<br />

l’Académ iefrançaise»,Carnetsd’AtelierdeSociolinguistique5,59-82.<br />

Rey,C.,2011(ed.),«LeDictionnairedel'Académiefrançaise:unmodèlequitraverselessiècles»,<br />

Étudesdelinguistiqueappliquée163.


DonChapman,Brigham YoungUniversity,Provo,Utah(US)<br />

PrescriptiveRulesasaTraditionintheUnitedStates<br />

Prescriptiverules,astheyhavebeencodi!edinusagehandbooksandtaughtinschoolsin<br />

theUnitedStates,havecom etoconstitutetheirowntradition.Som eprescriptiverules,like<br />

lesvs.fewerorim plyvs.inferhavebeen pa sed on from handbooktohandbookand from<br />

teachertostudenttothepointthattheirbelongingtoacanon ofusagerulesm aywelhave<br />

becomeasimportantasanyoriginalreasonforpromotingtheserules.Knowingthem<br />

cariesmuchvalueinitself.InBourdieu’sterms,theyconstitutesymboliccapitalthatcanbe<br />

convertedintoculturalandeconomiccapital(1991).IneJect,thetraditionofprescriptive<br />

ruleshasbecom eanimportantsourceofauthorityforindividualprescriptiverules.How<br />

thattraditionworksasatraditionwilbethesubjectofthispresentation.<br />

6etraditionalnatureofprescriptiveruleshasbeenfrequentlyremarked(Petersand<br />

Young1997;Meyers1995;Algeo1992).W hatdeservesmoreatentionisthewaythatthe<br />

workingsofatraditionconfervaluetotheknowledgetransmitedinthattradition.An<br />

im portantroleoftradition,assuggestedbytheword’setym ology,istopa son item sof<br />

im portance,in thiscase,theprescribedandproscribedvariantsofseveralconstructions.In<br />

thisaction,atraditionm ustbeatoncestableand2exible.Itm ustappeartobestable<br />

enoughforrecipientstotrustthevalidityofthetransmiteditems,yet2exibleenoughto<br />

accommodatenew informationandneeds.Somewaysthattraditionsmanagethese<br />

contradictoryimpulsesaretoreifythetransmitedinformationandtopresentnew<br />

inform ation within theestablishedgenresandform ulations.New inform ation isnot<br />

presentedasnew information,butinsteadasanelaborationofwhathasalreadybeen<br />

accepted.<br />

Intherhetoricoftheprescriptiverules,thesestrategiesareevident.W ithsom e<br />

notableexceptions(Meriam-Webster1994,Peters2004),theprescriptiverulesinmost<br />

usagehandbooksarepresentedasiftheirjudgmentswerealreadyestablishedandnot<br />

subjecttoscrutiny.Yetthetraditionitselfism oredynam icthanthisrhetoricwouldsuggest,<br />

asnew rulesareadoptedandsomeoldonesdiscarded,withlitleexplicitnotice.By<br />

perpetuatinginformationasifitwerealreadyandalwaysaccepted,theprescriptive<br />

traditionacquiresstrongstayingpower.6 ispaperwildraw uponspeci!cprescriptive<br />

rulesfrom varioususagehandbookstoilustratetheworkingsofthistraditionintheUnited<br />

States.<br />

References:<br />

Algeo,John.1991.SweetaretheUsesofDiversity.Word(42):1-17.<br />

Bourdieu,Piere.1991.LanguageandSymbolicPower.Ed.John B.6 om pson.Trans.Gino<br />

RaymondandMathewAdamson.Cambridge:PolityPres.<br />

Meriam-WebsterDictionaryofEnglishUsage.1994.Spring!eld,M A:M e riam -W ebster.<br />

Meyers,WalterE.1995.“LinguisticsinTextbooks:AForty-YearComparison”AmericanSpech<br />

(70):30-68.<br />

Peters,Pam.2004. eCambridgeGuidetoEnglishUsage.Cam bridge:Cam bridgeUniversityPre s.<br />

Peters,Pam andWendyYoung.1997.EnglishGrammarandtheLexicographyofUsage.Journalof<br />

EnglishLinguistics(25):315-31.


GabrielaE.Dima,SectiadeItaliana,Universitatea“Al.ICuza”,IaOi(Rom ania)<br />

PrescriptionandTraditionintheRomanianLiteraryLanguage<br />

6ispaperintendstopresentsomepeculiaritiesofthelinguisticsystem ofRomanianinits<br />

historicaldevelopment,withparticularregardtothe18 th century.<br />

OldRomanianreachedarelativelyunitarycharacterby1750.Laictranslations<br />

cariedoutduringthefolowingperiod,whichrepresenttheonlyform oflaicliteraturein<br />

Romanian,werein2uencedbyWesternEnlightenmentandalowedthepenetrationof<br />

severalelem entsfrom thepopularlanguagewhileextendingthenumberofinnovations.<br />

AccordingtoEugenioCoseriu(Introducereinlingvistica,Cluj,1975),ataparticularm o-<br />

ment,someinfrequentphenomenaareseenas“erors”bytheoldsystem consideredto<br />

representthe“prescription”,buttheybecom einnovations,endingtobeacceptedasregular<br />

elementsofthenew system.<br />

Wewilt<strong>here</strong>forepresentasigni!cantnumberofexamples,extractedfrom the<br />

RomanianCyrilicmanuscriptsthathavebeenlitleinvestigatedsofar,toilustratethe<br />

linguisticchanges,t<strong>here</strong>asonsbehind thesechangesand their!nalacceptanceasprescriptiveelem<br />

ents.Am ongthenum eroussituationsencountered,weshalprovideexamples<br />

atphonetic,morphologicalandlexicallevel.Forinstance,inphonetics,theoldlanguage<br />

usedtheverbalform adePchide,whilein the18 th centurya“mistakenform”,adeschide,<br />

appeared,generalizedandbecamecompulsoryinthemodernliterarylanguage.Asfaras<br />

morphologyisconcerned,articledformsoft<strong>here</strong>lativepronouncare,speci!ctotheold<br />

language(carea,carele,cari),wereabandonedinfavouroftheunin2ectedform .Lexical<br />

wavingbetweentraditionandinnovationisparticularlyspectacular.6 echangeinthe<br />

!eldsofinterestduringEnlightenmentdeterminedthedevelopmentoffunctionalstyles<br />

andimposedanincreaseinthenumberofneologisms,necesaryforanadequatecommunication.6<br />

us,t<strong>here</strong>tookplacesigni!cantchangesofvocabularywithinanevolutionincludingtwophases.6<br />

e!rstneologismshadaphoneticadaptationandamorphological<br />

determinationaccordingtothetraditionalneo-Greekin2uence.Asaresult,togetherwith<br />

Greekwordssuchasdiadoh,ipocrisis,itichi,ametahirisi,perierghie,tropos,Latin-rom ance<br />

loanswereadapted in thesam eway:apublicarisi,arecomandarisi,atradisi,teoreticos.6 e<br />

secondphasem eantadeparturefrom theprevioustraditionsthatcouldnot,however,be<br />

substitutedbyadiJerentnorm .6 econsequencewasthatthephoneticaspectoftheloan<br />

waspreserved,makingthusposibleanimmediateidenti!cationofthesourcelanguage:<br />

academisian,meta⇠zisian,pansion,senser(from French),arhivum,consilium,presidens,<br />

universitas(from Latin),calitá,neutralitá,prigionier,stravaganRS(from Italian),etc.<br />

6elanguageevolution,thecommoneJortsoftheRomanianintelectuals,the<br />

establishmentofaprescriptivegrammaranddictionary,thesubstitutionoftheCyrilic<br />

alphabetwiththeLatinoneconditionedtheformationofthemodernRomanianLiterary<br />

language.


PieterDuij,FryskeAkadem y–KNAW ,Departm entofLinguistics,L euwarden ( eNetherlands)<br />

TowardsamodernFrisianStandard<br />

Frisian,theGermaniclanguagespokeninthenorthernDutchprovinceofFriesland,has<br />

forcenturiesbeenmainlyaspokenlanguage.Sinceabout1900thewritenuseofFrisian<br />

hasincreased,foralargepartduetotheso-caledFrisianM ovement.6 is,consistingof<br />

individuals,groupsandinstitutions,hassincethenineteenthcenturybeenendeavouring<br />

tostrengthenthepositionofthem inoritylanguageintheNetherlands.(About55% ofthe<br />

inhabitantsoftheprovinceofFrieslandhasFrisian astheirm othertongue;almostal<br />

FrisiansspeaksandwritesDutchperfectly).Inthelastdecadeofthetwentiethcentury<br />

FrisiangotthestatusofthesecondoPciallanguageoftheNetherlands.W hilesincethe<br />

RenaisanceinWesternEuropeLanguagebuildershavebeenmakingeJortstostandardise<br />

languages,standard languagesbecam eaccepted generaly.6 estandardisation proce sof<br />

FrisianwasdiJerentanditstilis(Feitsma(1989);Breuker(2001).6 estandardforFrisian<br />

hasnotcrystalizedoutyet(DuijJetal2008).Inpractice,thismeansthatseveralvariant<br />

form sandpronunciationsareaccepted.6 isin spiteofthehundredyearsoldhistoryof<br />

Frisiandictionaries.Alsointhenineteenthcenturythe!rstmoreorlesoPcialFrisian<br />

orthographyruleswerepublished.ButliketheFrisianstandardtheserulesarenotfuly<br />

prescriptive.Frisiansdon’thaveaspelingguideliketheDutchGroeneBoekje.However,<br />

sincethebeginningof2012thelinguisticdepartm entoftheFryskeAkademyisworkingon<br />

thecom pilingofastandardwordlistoftheFrisianlanguage.A wordlistwithstandard<br />

orthographyrules.6 echoiceforastandardwordlist,impliesthatthecompilershaveto<br />

makealotofchoicesmore.Whichdialectform hastoreceiveaplaceinthedictionaryand<br />

whichnot?Orisitnecesaryordesirabletogivetwoorevenmorevariantsaplaceinthe<br />

guide?<br />

Inm ycontributionIwanttodescribewhatworkhastobedoneonastandardfor<br />

Frisian.IwanttodothisonthebasisofdiJerencesbetweenthevarietyofFrisiandialects.<br />

Ofcourse,sincethewritingtraditionofFrisianalotofstandardizationchoiceshavebeen<br />

made,andIwanttodescribewhyjusttheseweremade.Isthistraditionalwaysleadingfor<br />

thecom pilersofthenew standardwordlist,ordotheyhavetom aketheirownchoices?<br />

References:<br />

Breuker,P.(2001),‘6 eDevelopmentofStandardWestFrisian.’InHorstH.Munskeetal,HandbuchdesFriesischen/HandbookofFrisianStudies.Tübingen:M<br />

axNiem eyerVerlag.711-721.<br />

DuijJ,P.;VanderKuip,F.;DeHaan,R.;Sijens,H.(2008).FryskHânwurdboek.Ljouwert:Fryske<br />

Akademy,AFUK.<br />

Feitsma,A.(1989).‘6 eHistoryoftheFrisianLinguisticNorm’.InFodor,I;Hagège,C.(eds.).LanguageReform,HistoryandFuture/LaRéformedesLangues,HistoireetAvenir/Sprachreform,GeschichteundZukun⇡4.Ham<br />

burg:Helm utBuskeVerlag,Ham burg.249-272.


MartinGil,ÅboAkadem iUniversity,Turku (Finland)<br />

⇡ediscomfortofstrangers:nostalgia,ideology<br />

anddefenceoftheEnglishspeechcommunity<br />

SpeakingtoConservativepartymembersin2011,BritishPrimeM inisterDavidCameron<br />

highlightedthe“discomfortanddisjointednes”experiencedbyinhabitantsof“real<br />

communities”facedwithanin2uxof“new people”unabletospeaktheirlanguageand“not<br />

realywantingorevenwilingtointegrate”.<br />

Hismesagewasalsoclearlyaimedatawiderandnow increasinglyvocalBritish<br />

audience,hostiletomulticulturalism ,scathingaboutperceived‘politicalcorectnes’–<br />

whowouldconcurwiththemotion proposedin aSpectatordebateattheRoyalGeographicalSocietyin<br />

M arch2012that,regardingimmigration,“Enoughisenough”<br />

(cariedby178votesto85).<br />

Underpresurefrom populardiscoursesdominatedbysuchviews,m anycountries<br />

arewitnesingt<strong>here</strong>surgenceofmonoculturalideologies,including(re)enforcementof<br />

regulatedlanguagenormsandanincreaseddeterminationtoregardthenationalpolityas<br />

stable,hom ogeneousandmonolingual.<br />

Cameron’scommentsreflectapolicyworldshapedbyandresponsivetosuch<br />

asumptions,w<strong>here</strong>theintegrityoftheEnglishspeechcommunityisnow seentobein<br />

urgentneedofdefence.Atthesametime,hisimageofhom ely,plain spoken,monoglot<br />

Britainoverunbydangerouslyincom prehensibleoutsidersbelongstoafam iliartradition<br />

ofnationalrhetoricalself-imagining.Drawingonananalysisofexamplesfrom recent<br />

British politicalandmediadiscourse,thispaperwilexaminecu rentmanifestationsof<br />

thistradition,inparticularitsuseindiscursiveboundarymaintenance,norm enforcement,andt<strong>here</strong>sultingpositioningof‘others’inrelationto‘Britishnes’/‘Englishnes’.<br />

ItwilsuggestthatspeakingEnglishplaysakeyrole:atonceasimplerequirement<br />

andanimposibleideal,aclosedcategorythat“newpeople”arenotautomaticalyfreeto<br />

join,eveniftheyareunderrelentlespresuretodoso,andeveniftheirnotjoiningis<br />

interpretedasanactivechoiceontheirpart,henceproofofunsuitability.<br />

6atsuchviewscanbemaintainedinthefaceofaneverydayrealityin which m ultilingualandmultiethnicidentitiesareincreasinglythenorm<br />

suggeststhatwhatisneededis<br />

acriticalyinform edchalengetothebasisoftheseexclusivediscoursesthemselves.


NataliaGuermanova,M oscow StateLinguisticUniversity(Ru sia)<br />

⇡ePrincipleofIconicityinEnglishPrescriptiveGrammar<br />

Criticsofprescriptivetraditiono?enclaim thatoneofitsmainfalacieswas,togetherwith<br />

theexce sivefocusonsocialprestigeandasubjectiveapproachtostandardization,thelack<br />

ofatheoreticalbasis.However,acloselookatprescriptiverulesshowsthatthe18 th century<br />

prescriptivegrammarandthephilosophicaltraditionofthetimehavemanymorepointsof<br />

intersection than itiso?en believed.<br />

6eunderlyingprincipleofprescriptivism,basedonLocke’sconceptoflinguistic<br />

sign,wastheisom orphism oflanguageandthought.Itwasbelievedthatiflanguagewas<br />

usedimprecisely,itdistortedthemeaningthespeakerwastryingtoconvey,whichresulted<br />

in “thecheatofwords”.Consequently,m anyprescriptivestricturesm adeuseofthedistinctionsbetween<br />

gram m arform stoenablespeakerstoexpre sasm anysubtlesem anticnuancesaspo<br />

sible.6 ewel-knownexamplesarerulesconcerningagreementbetweensubject<br />

andpredicate,wordorder,theuseofarticles,diJerentiatingpartsofspeechandformsof<br />

iregularverbs,theprohibition tousethatin relativeclausestodistinguish them from<br />

objectclausesetc.<br />

Viewed inasemioticperspective,theserulesledto theincreaseindiagrammatic<br />

iconicityin StandardEnglish.6 us,m any(perhapsm ost)gram m arruleswerebasedon<br />

fundam entalprinciplesoficonicity,whichclaim thatdiJerentconceptsareexpre sedby<br />

diJerentforms(diJerentiationprinciple),similarconceptsareexpresedbysimilarforms<br />

(analogyprinciple),wordorderindicatesrealorconceptualdistancebetweenreferentsor<br />

theirpragm aticvalue(proxim ityprinciple)etc.AccordingtoNaturalne shypothesis<br />

(T.Givon,J.Haiman,W.Dreslerandothers)iconicsignsareseenasmorenaturalthan<br />

arbitraryones.Ifthisisrealyso,theaccentoniconicityinprescriptivegrammarcouldbe<br />

seenasnotsoarti!cialasitiso?enstated.<br />

6egrowingcriticalatitudetoprescriptivegrammarinthe19 th centurycan beexplained,amongotherfactors,bytheshi?inthephilosophicalcontext,as,beginningwith<br />

theepochofRom anticism ,Locke’sconceptoflinguisticsigngavewaytoHum boldtian<br />

viewsonlanguage.Humboldtunderstoodlanguageasapowerfulcreativeforce,shapingthe<br />

geniusofthenation.Hedevelopedanew conceptionofperspicuity,whichwasnomore<br />

seenasanobjectivepropertyoftext,butratherasashi?ingpsychologicalfactor.6 usthe<br />

discrepancybetweenlanguageandthoughtemergedasanintegralantinomyofhuman<br />

communicationwhichwasnottobecorectedbyman.NeithercouldSchleicher’sorganic<br />

conceptoflanguageasanaturalphenomenonindependentofman’swilserveasatheoreticalbasisforstandardization.W<br />

henprescriptiveruleslosttheirtheoreticalgrounding,<br />

theybegantoberegardedaspurelyform alandsuper2uous,whichexplains,ifpartialy,the<br />

criticalatitudetoprescriptivetraditioninmodernlinguistics.


LarsHinrichs 1 ,BenediktSzmrecsanyi 2 andAxelBohmann 1 , 1 UniversityofTexasatAustin(USA),<br />

2UniversityofManchester(UK)<br />

Unusualystrongimpactofprescriptiverulesonlanguageuse:<br />

⇡ecaseofobject-functionrestrictiverelativizersin writenstandardEnglish<br />

Whilethein2uenceofgrammaticalprescriptivism onactuallanguageuseisgeneralyconsideredtobeweak,thecaseofrelativizerselectioninStandardEnglishrestrictiverelative<br />

clausesprovidesastrongcounter-example.Inthelate20thandearly21stcenturies,variation<br />

between thethreepo sibleform sisnolongerfreefrom prescriptivein2uence.M ost<br />

writersnowhaveastylisticpreferencebetweenwhich,that,and zeroin asentencelike is<br />

isthehouse___Jackbuilt.In theprescriptiveusageliterature(e.g.Fowler,1965;Strunk&<br />

White,1999),theoptionthathasbeenstronglypropagatedsincetheearly20 th century.O ur<br />

papertakesacorpus-based,statisticalapproachtothiscaseofvariation.<br />

Inordertobeterunderstandwhythisparticularprescriptionhasgainedsom uch<br />

groundinwritenStandardEnglishwhileothershavenot,wetapthepart-of-speech-tagged<br />

Brownfamilyofcorpora(Hinrichs,Smith,& Waibel,2010)inamultivariateapproach.<br />

Usingsemi-automatedproceduresofdata-extractionandcoding,wecompiledadatasetof<br />

N=6,061objectrelativeclausesfrom BritishandAmericanEnglish,publishedinequal<br />

amountsinthe1960sandthe1990s.W eapproachedthechoicebetweenwhich,thatand<br />

zeroast<strong>here</strong>sponsevariable(casesofwho(m)(se)-,w<strong>here</strong>-andwhyasrelativizerswere<br />

excluded)andcodedeachoccu renceformorethanfortyindependentfactors.6 ese<br />

includenotonlytheusualfactorsrelatedtolinguisticcontextsuch asthepartofspeech of<br />

theantecedent,orthem ostrecentselectionofrelativizerm adebythesam ewriter(totest<br />

form orphosyntacticpersistence),butalsothefrequencyofotherfeaturesthatarethe<br />

subjectofprescriptivistdiscourse.Forexample,wequanti!edforeachcorpus!lethe<br />

proportionofverbsinpasivevoicevs.active,strandedprepositionsasproportionofal<br />

prepositionsused,thefrequencyofsplitin!nitivesandtheuseofshalversuswilasmodal.<br />

Weanalyzedthedatausingunivariateanalysis,multilevellinearmodeling,multilevel<br />

logisticregre sion,and random forestm odeling.Our!ndingsare:(1)Changein usage<br />

betweenthe1960sand90sismanifestedasadramaticdropinthefrequencyofwhichselection,m<br />

ostlyinfavorofthatbutalsoofzero.Inotherwords,theprescriptivistrulehas<br />

eJectivelyamountedtowhich-proscription.(2)Otherareasofgram m arthatprescriptivism<br />

hastriedtoin2uence(e.g.pasivevoiceproscription)havealsochanged,sometimesalonga<br />

sim ilartrajectory.However,analysisatthelevelofdiJerenttextualgenresfailstoshow<br />

co relation.W eproposethatthese!ndingspointtowardthestrongidiosyncrasyof<br />

individualprescriptiverules.<br />

References:<br />

Fowler,H.W.(1965).ADictionaryofModernEnglishUsage.(E.Gowers,Ed.)(Reprint.).ClarendonPres.<br />

Hinrichs,L.,Smith,N.,&Waibel,B.(2010).Manualofinformationforthepart-of-speech-tagged,<br />

post-edited“Brown”corpora.ICAM E Journal,34,189–231.<br />

Strunk,W.,& W hite,E.B.(1999). eElementsofStyle(4thed.).Longm an.


MarkKaunisto,UniversityofJyväskylä(Finland)<br />

GuidebooksonEnglishusageinlightof<br />

corpusevidence:aretheentriestrulywarranted?<br />

6ispaperlooksintoEnglishguidebooksonlanguageuse,withspecialatentiongivento<br />

thequestionoftheselectionofitem sastheirentries.Suchreferencebookshaveingeneral<br />

shownvaryingdegreesofprescriptivenes;forexample,asrem arkedbyCrystal(2009),<br />

som eofthecom m entariesinFowler’sclasicADictionaryofModernEnglishUsage,originalypublishedin1926,maybecharacterisedasprescriptive,w<strong>here</strong>asothersaremore<br />

descriptiveandacceptingofperceivedchangesinthelanguage.Itisonlyfairlyrecentlythat<br />

referencebooksonlanguageusehavebeenconsciouslyputtogetherbym akinguseoflarge<br />

databasesofauthentictexts,notableexamplesbeingtheworksbyGarner(1998)andPeters<br />

(2001).6 eanalysisofauthenticcorpusdataprovidesam oreobjectiveviewpointintothe<br />

isuesconcerninglanguagevariation andchange.<br />

Consideringguidebooksingeneral,wemaystilaskwhatkindsoffactorshaveledto<br />

theselectionofentriesinthem :althoughthedescriptionsm adeintheentriesm ay<br />

nowadaysbebasedonstudiesofauthenticdata,whyhavetheauthorschosentocoverthose<br />

particularquestionsaboutlanguageuse?AsChapman(2009)hasobserved,tradition<br />

probablyplaysanimportantpartinthesetupoftheentries.Ontheotherhand,itisevident<br />

thatatsom epointcertainisueslosetheirrelevance,resultingfrom eitherclearlanguage<br />

change(e.g.,undesiredformsorexpresionsarenolongerused)ormorewidespread<br />

acceptanceoftheusesearlierregardedassubstandard.A goodexampleoftheeJectof<br />

traditionisthecoverageofsplitin!nitives:althoughtheyarenowadayscom m only<br />

accepted,theisueisstilo?endiscu sedinusagemanuals.<br />

Mypaperexaminestheentriesinvolvingrivalwordswhichsharethesamerootbut<br />

havediJerentsuPxes.Suchitemsarefrequentlycommentedoninguidebooksonlanguage<br />

use.6 estudyfocusesontwosuPxpairs–wordsendingin-ic/-icaland-ive/-ory–and<br />

observestheoccu rencesofentriesintenguidebooks(publishedinthelast20years)in<br />

lightofthefrequenciesofco respondingrivalword pairsin largeelectroniccorpora,the<br />

100-milion-wordBritishNationalCorpusandthe450-milionwordCorpusof<br />

ContemporaryAmericanEnglish.Althoughmerefrequencydatadoesnotfulyexplain<br />

whydiJerentexpresionsarediscusedinguidebooks,thestudyaskswhethercertain<br />

paterns(suchasrivalsuPxpairs)orindividualwordpairstendtodraw moreatention,<br />

relativelyspeaking,thantheywouldappeartodeservebasedoncorpusevidence.<br />

References:<br />

Chapman,Don(2009)“Lostbatlesandthewrongendofthecanon:atritionamongusageprescriptions”,apaperpresentedattheSHEL-6conference,BanJ,Canada,April30-M<br />

ay2,<br />

2009.<br />

Crystal,David(2009)IntroductiontoADictionaryofModernEnglishUsage:theClasicFirst<br />

EditionbyH.M .Fowler,editedbyDavidCrystal.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPres.<br />

Garner,Bryan(1998)ADictionaryofModernAmericanUsage.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPre s.<br />

Peters,Pam (2001) eCambridgeDictionaryofEnglishUsage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity<br />

Pres.


ViktorijaKostadinova,LUCL,<strong>Leiden</strong> University( eNetherlands)<br />

⇡eCyberstateofLanguage:PopularAtitudestoEnglishLanguageUseontheInternet<br />

Inam uchcitedbookonlinguisticcleanline s,DeborahCam eronnotesthatthe‘stateofthe<br />

language’isa‘discursiveconstruct’ratherthan ‘an objectivedescription ofcertain linguistic<br />

phenomena’(Cameron,1995:213).Inlightofthisobservation,theprescriptivist-descriptivistdebateisacon2ictofdiscoursesthatinevitablyco<br />

relatewith othersocial,politicaland<br />

culturalfactors.6 emotivationsbehindtheproductionandmaintenanceofacertaindiscourseofproperusage,oraperceived‘state’oftheEnglishlanguage,varyaccordingtothe<br />

contextinwhichtheyareproduced.AsBealhasshowninthecaseofco rectpronunciation<br />

in English,thediscoursesaccom panyingcertain atitudestowardsinco rectpronunciation<br />

re2ectcontemporarysocialconditions(2008).In18th-and19th-centuryEngland,co rect<br />

pronunciationfacilitatedsocialadvancementandsignaledacultivatedbackground.<br />

Inco rectpronunciationwasgeneralyconsideredvulgarandem ba ra sing,andforwom en<br />

itentailed le slikelihood ofagood m a riage(Beal,2008).6 em odern discourseon nonstandardpronunciationgeneralyevokesthesham<br />

eandpoorself-representationthatis<br />

asociatedwithnon-standardpronunciation.<br />

6egoalofthepresentstudyistoprovideevidenceforandinsightintothechanges<br />

whichsuchpopulardiscoursesonlanguagecorectneshaveundergonewiththeadventof<br />

computer-mediatedcommunication(CM C).6 elastdecadehasseenamasiveexpansion<br />

ofelectroniccommunicationthroughsocialnetworksites(SNSs).6 ishasbroughtabouta<br />

proliferationofinformalcommunicationamongpeoplefrom alovertheworld.Inturn,<br />

thesenew socialcom m unitieshavecreatednew contextsforlinguisticproductioninwhich<br />

thequestionofco rectusageisregularlyraised.6 ispaperwilpresentresultsfrom an<br />

onlinesurveyinvestigatingthecu rentsituationwithpopularatitudestowardsusageon<br />

Facebook.6 eworkingconclusionsfrom thesurveysuggestthatnew levelsofproblematic<br />

usagehaveemerged,suchastheinterchangeableuseoftheir,t<strong>here</strong>,and they’re,and that<br />

languageuseisa sociated m orestronglywith self-representation and personalorgroup<br />

identities.Atthesam etim e,theexpre sedatitudesdisplaygreatvariation which calsfora<br />

new researchmodel.6 ispaperwillastlyprovideadetailedoverview ofthecu rent<br />

spectrum ofpopularatitudestothisparticulartypeof‘electronic’languageusageinthe<br />

contextoftheirsocialcontextandtracethechangesthathaveoccu redinthisarena.<br />

Reference:<br />

Beal,JoanC.2008.“‘ShamedbyyourEnglish?’:6 eMarketValueofa‘Good’Pronunciation”.In<br />

Beal,C.Joan,CarmelaNocera,andMasimoSturiale(eds.),PerspectivesonPrescriptivism.<br />

Bern:PeterLang.Cameron,Deborah.1995.VerbalHygiene.London and New York:<br />

Routledge.


HenriLePrieult,EnglishDepartm ent,UniversityofToulouse(France)<br />

Whatdidcustom m ean fortheBrstEnglish gram m arians:afriend orafoe?<br />

6ispaperaimsatanalysingt<strong>here</strong>ferencestotheconceptof‘custom’inthe!rstgrammars<br />

ofEnglish(late16 th and 17 th c.).<br />

6estandardisationofEnglish,aswelasofmostEuropeanlanguages,maybedated<br />

backtothetimewhenthe!rstgrammarsofthevernacularwerewriten,eitherinEnglish<br />

orLatin,from theendofthe16 th centuryonward.Atthattim e,theauthorityoftheGreco<br />

Latindescriptiveandprescriptiveframework,devisedandtransmitedfrom theClasical<br />

Ages,wouldbegeneralyacknowledged,althoughsometimeschalenged,bythe!rst<br />

grammariansoftheEnglishlanguage.<br />

Whenconsideringthese!rstatemptsatdescribingandstandardisingEnglish,one<br />

frequentlyencountersverydiversede!nitionsofsom eofthecentralconceptstoany<br />

de!nitionofnormsandstandards:‘norms’,‘usage’,‘rules’,‘authority’,‘anomaly’,‘corectnes’,<br />

etc.Attimes,usageispromoted,tothepointofpavingthewayfortheacceptanceofvarious<br />

posiblestandards.Butitisrarelyclearastowho,infact,decideswhatisacceptable:<br />

Reason,Nature,anyspeechcommunity,oralearnedminority?Consequently,onemight<br />

enquirewhatisinfactunderstoodbytheconceptof‘custom’.Isitmerelya“barbarousand<br />

gothic”practice(Lane1700),thesymptom ofagenerallackof“publicauthority”andan<br />

altogether“unadvised”temptation(Cooper1687)?Canthegrammarian!ghtagainstitoris<br />

itjust“invincible”(W ilkins1668)?Conversely,can’titbegladlywelcom ed asa“friend”<br />

ratherthanasa“foe”,the“companionofreason”(M ulcaster1582),endowedwith“theforce<br />

ofNatureitself”(Lewis1670),evenacceptedas“amendingforce”(Johnson1640)?<br />

Withrepeatedandregularreferencesto‘custom’duringthe!rstdecadesofthe<br />

foundingofthegram m arofEnglish,itseem edrelevanttoca ryoutasurveyofthevarious<br />

sem anticfeaturesasociatedwiththiscentralconceptinordertounderstandtheirrelation<br />

tot<strong>here</strong>presentation ofusageatthattim e.<br />

6ispaperwilatempttoprovideadetailedviewof‘custom’asde!nedandusedby<br />

the!rstgram m ariansofEnglishinordertoreachabeterunderstandingofthelegacythese<br />

worksprovidedtothedescriptive/prescriptivetradition.<br />

References:<br />

Auroux,Sylvain.1994.Larévolutiontechnologiquedelagrammatisation.Mardaga:Liège.<br />

Jones,RichardFoster.1966.6 eTrium phoftheEnglishLanguage.Stanford:S.U.P.<br />

LePrieult,Henri.2006.Grammaticalité:Traditionsetmodernités.Toulouse:P.U.M.<br />

Michael,Ian.1970.EnglishGrammaticalCategoriesandtheTraditionto1800.Cambridge,<br />

CambridgeUniversityPres.<br />

Robins,R.H.1951.AncientandMediaevalGrammatical6 eoryinEurope.Washington/London:<br />

KennikatPres.


KatjaLochtman,UniversitéLibredeBruxeles(Belgium )<br />

Prescriptivism andsociolinguisticcompetencein<br />

GermanasaForeignLanguageatUniversity<br />

ToBelgianstudentswhostudyGermanlanguageandliteratureatuniversity,Germanisa<br />

foreign language(GFL).Hence,languagee rorsareo?en de!nedin relation tolearningthe<br />

standardlanguageasthenorm .From anacadem icpointofview,adistinctioncanbem ade<br />

betweenalinguisticandasociolinguisticnorm.W hilethelinguisticnorm referstothe<br />

languagesystem in term sofgram m arrulesand thestandard lexicon,sociolinguisticsis<br />

concernedwithlanguagebehaviorandlanguagevarietiesinformalandinformalsetings.<br />

From thelaterperspectivelanguageerorsarede!nedintermsofinappropriatelanguage<br />

behavior.6 equestionishow asociolinguisticnorm isdealtwithbyuniversitystudentsin<br />

aGFL-context.Inordertoinvestigatethisquestion,31bachelorand14masterstudents<br />

majoringinGermanfrom boththeUniversitéLibredeBruxelesandtheVrije<strong>Universiteit</strong><br />

Bruselwereaskedin2009towritedowntheirpointofviewinnaratives.Accordingto<br />

Swainetal.(2011:Xi)"narativeinquiryandnarativeanalysishavevigorousrolesin<br />

educationgeneraly.Storyingtheexperienceofteaching[.],andoflearninghasbecomean<br />

acceptedmethodofresearch".6 estartingpointoftheirdiscu sionsisthecolumnon<br />

popularlanguageuseinSPIEGELONLINE(www.spiegel.de/thema/zwiebel!sch/)bythe<br />

languagecriticand stand-upcom edian Bastian Sick.6 eresultsindicatethatforeign<br />

languagestudentsstilhavearatherprescriptiveview on gram m arand languagelearning.It<br />

issuggestedthatlanguagee rorsarenolongersolelyunderstoodasafunction of<br />

grammaticalaccuracybutalsofrom asociolinguisticpointofview asappropriatenes<br />

(Lochtm an2012).<br />

References:<br />

Lochtman,K.(2012)SprachnormeninderAuslandsgermanistik.Mutersprache,3,194-202.<br />

Swain,M ./Kinnear,P./Steinman,L.(2011):Sociocultural eoryinSecondLanguageEducation.<br />

Bristol/Toronto.


SpirosA.Moschonas,UniversityofAthens(Gr ece)<br />

Non-uniform standards:⇡ ecaseofStandardModernGreek<br />

6eaim ofthispaperistoprovideacounterexampletoawidelyheldconceptionof<br />

standardization as“theim position ofuniform ity”upon acertain linguisticvariety(M ilroy<br />

2001:531).IexaminethestandardizationofModernGreekbyM anolisTriantaphylidis<br />

(1883-1959),alinguistconsideredtobethe“foundingfather”ofStandardM odernGreek<br />

(oP cialStandardsince1976).<br />

6epresentationconcentratesonTriantaphylidis’ModernGrekGrammar(1941)<br />

andshowsthetypesoflinguisticvarietydocumentedinit.AlthoughTriantaphylidis’aim<br />

wasto“putanend”tothelastingGreekdiglosia,hisGrammarwasquitetoleranttowards<br />

thehigh(archaistic)variantsoftheGreeklanguageanditalsorecordedagreatdealof<br />

dialectalvariation.<br />

Mypresentationalsolooksatt<strong>here</strong>-standardizationpracticesthathavebecome<br />

prominenta?ertheoPcializationofTriantaphylidis’norm in1976;Iwilshow thatcu rent<br />

“co rectivepractices”(M oschonas& Spitzm ü ler2009)haveadoptedaphraseologicaltrend,<br />

whichdoesnotdistinguishbetweenhighandlowvariantsandisthusconsistentwithTriantaphylidis’non-uniform<br />

standard.ItisalsointerestingthatTriantaphylidis’prescriptive<br />

form ula(‘StandardM odern Greek= Low variety+ highvariants,asnece sary’)hasnow<br />

asumedthestatusofadescriptiveprincipleinalreferenceGrammarsofM odernGreek<br />

publisheda?erTriantaphylidis’.<br />

Iftim ealows,theGreekcasewilbecontrastedtothecasesofotherpluri-centric<br />

Standards,suchasNorwegian,whichisasumedtobecu rentlyundergoingadestandardizationproces(Sandøy2012).<br />

Iarguethattheconceptionofastandardasa“uniform variety”isanideological,pretheoreticalconstruct,andthusitcannotform<br />

partofanyserioustheorizationofthe<br />

standardizationproceses.Linguistsbelongtothesam earm yofauthoritieswith “founding<br />

fathers”,folowers,advocatesandwritingpractitionersofalkinds(e.g.,editors,educators,<br />

cra?profesionals);theirroleistopropagatethenormsofastandardthroughrationalizing<br />

andspreadingtheilusionofuniformity.<br />

References:<br />

Milroy,J.2001.Languageideologiesandtheconsequencesofstandardization.JournalofSociolinguistics5/4:530-555.<br />

MoschonasS.A.andJ.Spitzmüler.2009.Prescriptivism inandaboutthemedia:Acomparative<br />

analysisofco rectivepracticesinGreeceandGermany.In:S.JohnsonandT.M ilani(eds),<br />

LanguageIdeologiesandMediaDiscourse:Texts,Practices,Politics,London:Continuum :17-<br />

40.<br />

SandøyH.2011.LanguagecultureinNorway:A traditionofquestioningstandardlanguage<br />

norms.In:T.Kristiansen& N.Coupland(eds),StandardLanguagesandLanguage<br />

StandardsinaChangingEurope,Oslo:Novus,119-126.<br />

Triantaphylidis,M .1941 1 .ModernGrekGrammar(oftheDemotic)[inGreek].Athens:Institute<br />

ofModernGreekStudies,1978 2 .


ArtoMustajoki,Departm entofM odern Languages,UniversityofHelsinki(Finland)<br />

ChalengesinthestandardizationofcontemporaryRusian<br />

6eRusianlanguagehasfacedtworadicalchangesduringthelasttwentyyears.Oneof<br />

theseisthesam easinm anyotherm arket-basedsocieties:coloquialspeechandfeaturesof<br />

entertainmenthavepenetratedpubliclanguageuse.6 isisespecialytrueofmediatexts,<br />

bothoral(TV,radio)andwriten(newspapersandjournals).InRu siathisproceswas<br />

muchfasterthaninothercountries,ast<strong>here</strong>wasanimmediatechangefrom astrongly<br />

regulatedpubliclanguageusetoaratherchaoticm edialandscape.6 ism eanta<br />

democratizationofpubliclanguagepractices,whichhadpreviouslybeeninthehandsofa<br />

sm alnumberofspeakersofliteraryRu sian.Suddenlyalm osteveryonecouldhavehisor<br />

herownvoiceheardinpublicarenas.Havingthefreedom tospeakastheywantedto,<br />

peopleactivelyintroducedcoloquialexpresionsandloanwordsfrom EnglishintooPcial<br />

speech.6 isprovidedafruitfulgroundfordebateonthe“spoiling”oftheRu sianlanguage<br />

(cf.Vanhala-Aniszewski2010,W ingender& al.2010).Oneoftheactionsaim edat“saving”<br />

thelanguagewastheadoptionofanew LanguageActin2005,whichfolowedtheFrench<br />

traditionofpurism andgrantedtheauthoritiestherighttocon!rm thelinguisticnorm .It<br />

wassurprisingthatthe!rstregulativeactionon1September2009wastoacceptsome<br />

variantsofspelingandpronunciationwhichhadpreviouslybeeninpopularuse,butnonstandardaccordingtoauthoritativedictionaries.<br />

AnothersubstantialchangedirectlycausedbythecolapseoftheSovietUnionwas<br />

thedeclineofthestatusofRu sianintheform erSovietrepublics.Atthesam etim elarge<br />

numbersofRu siansemigratedtoWesterncountries.6 enew situationraisedthequestion<br />

oftheexistenceofvarietiesofRu sian.Accordingtothetraditionalview,t<strong>here</strong>isonlyone<br />

standardvarietyoftheRu sianlanguage.However,itisobviousthattheRu sianusedin<br />

oPcialdocumentsin,say,Kazakhstan,orasalinguafrancainDagestan,gradualydiverges<br />

from “M oscow Ru sian”(cf.M ustajokiinpre s).Researchersargueoverthestatusofthese<br />

diJerences:aretheymerelylocalcolouringsofthestandardlanguage,oraret<strong>here</strong>grounds<br />

forspeakingofdiJerentvarietiesofRu sian?<br />

References:<br />

Mustajoki,A.(2013).Raznovidnostiruskogoyazyka:analiziklasi!katsiya(VarietiesofRusian:<br />

analysesandclasi!cation).Voprosyyazykoznaniya(submited).<br />

Vanhala-Aniszewski,M.(2010).Unityordiversity?6 elanguageideologydebateinRusianmedia<br />

texts.InLanguageideologiesintransitionmultilingualism inRusiaandFinland,ed byM .<br />

Lahteenmaki& M.Vanhala-Aniszewski.Frankfurtam Mainetc.:PeterLang,101-121.<br />

Wingender,M.,Barkijevir,I&D.Müler.(2010)KorpuslingvistischeUntersuchungenvon<br />

Standardsprachenmarkmalen.EinBeitragzurvergleichendenStandardologie.Zeitschri⇡für<br />

SlavischePhilologie.67:1,2010,125-161.


KazuhikoNakae,KansaiGaidaiUniversity,Osaka(Japan)<br />

From Prescriptivism toPurism inMultiglo sicArabic<br />

From thehistoricalperspectiveofArabiclanguageitsgrammarwascodi!edandfrozento<br />

!xinthe!rstandsecondcenturyofIslamicera(from theendofseventhcenturytoeighth<br />

centuryCE).6 islanguagehasbeencaledClasicalArabicinthewesternscholarly<br />

tradition.Andthisisthebeginningofstandardizationproce sinArabic.From thiseraon<br />

standardizationprocesm eanstom aintainthecodi!edgram m arasaprescriptiveand<br />

prestigiousnorm andtoendeavourtoavoidcoloquialin2uences,becauseanycoloquial<br />

2avouredArabicisasumedtobevulgarandstigmatized.<br />

6eArabicgrammarwhichwasprescribedbyS[bawayhi(d.793)inal-kit\bisthe<br />

mostimportantcoregrammarthatcannotbeavoidedfort<strong>here</strong>searchofArabiclanguage.<br />

AndthisgrammarhasbeenpreciouslypreservedinIslamictraditionbecauseal-Qurʾ\n<br />

waswriteninthisprescriptiveArabic.ActualythisprescriptiveArabicmightbeoneof<br />

varietiesintheClasicalperiod.HoweverthegrammarprescribedbyS[bawayhihas<br />

continuedtobethefrozennorm peoplestickto.Althoughitisnobody’smothertongue,it<br />

hasbeensopervasivetotheextentthatordinarynativespeakersrecognizeonlythis<br />

prescriptiveArabicaspureandauthentic.6 at’swhytheycalthisArabicfuṣḥ\(pure).<br />

6isisthewayprescriptivism andpurism hasdisturbedthepreciselinguistic<br />

descriptionandanalysisofArabicandthepreciseunderstandingoftheactualdynamic<br />

situationofArabic,whichasaresult‘israrelyembeddedinacadem iccu ricula’(DenHeijer<br />

2012)intheArabiceducation.Linguistsmaytendtoresorttoprescriptivism inlanguage<br />

description.Mitchel(1975)warnsaboutthistendency,mentioning‘anunconfesed<br />

purism’.Weshouldnotsticktothiskindofnormativebindandpuristicview inlinguistic<br />

description;otherwisewemayoverlookthedynamicinteractionofvariousvarietiesand<br />

stylesactualyusedinthespeechcom munity.Iwilshow som e2oatingconstructions<br />

triggeredbyspeakers’prescriptiveandpuristica sum ptioninArabicandthensearchfor<br />

linguisticproblem sin generalcaused byprescriptivism .<br />

Iam workinginthefram ework‘m ultiglo sia’suggestedbyHary(1992)overthe<br />

clasicalframeworkFerguson(1959)depictedas‘diglo sia’.6 ismulti-lectinteractionon<br />

thecontinuum betweenthetwoextrem esisanim portantviewpointfortheanalysisto<br />

comprehendtheactualdynamicsituationofArabic.Ithinkthatthismultiglo sic<br />

fram eworkholdstruealsoinsom eotherlanguages.Iwilsearchforsom etendencieswhich<br />

prescriptivism maybringaboutinmultiglosicsetingsingeneral.<br />

References:<br />

DenHeijer,Johannes.2012.“Introduction:MiddleandMixedArabic,NewTrendinArabic<br />

Studies.”InLiesbethZackandArieSchippers(eds.)MiddleArabicandMixedArabic,<br />

DiacronyandSynchrony.<strong>Leiden</strong>,Boston :Bril,1-25.<br />

Ferguson,C.A.1959.“Diglosia.”Word15,325-40.<br />

Hary,Benjamins.1992.MultiglosiainJudeo-Arabic.WithanEdition,Translationand<br />

GrammaticalStudyoftheCairenePurim Schrol.<strong>Leiden</strong>,New York,and Köln :E.J.Bril.<br />

Mitchel,T.F.1975.“SomePreliminaryObservationsontheArabicKoine.”BuletinofBritish<br />

SocietyforMiddleEasternStudies,Vol.2,no.2,70-86.


MirenLourdesOñedera,Academ yoftheBasqueLanguage/UniversityoftheBasqueCountry,Bilbao/<br />

Vitoria-Gasteiz(Spain)<br />

Basquepronunciation:dialectalrichnesvs.strength<br />

oftheStandardinaminoritylanguage<br />

6estandardisationofwritenBasquewasinitiatedinthelate60’s.6e!rststepstowards<br />

thestandardisationofitspronunciationweretakenbytheAcadem yoftheBasqueLanguage<br />

(m ainprescriptivistoP cialauthority,widelyrecognizedbyspeakersofbothFrenchand<br />

Spanishareas)thirtyyearslater.6 enormsfortheFormalPronunciationofStandard<br />

Basque(EBAZ),m ainlyrequiredbyandaddresedtothem ediaprofesionals,were<br />

publishedattheendof1998.<br />

6emainproblem thatpromptedthosenormsstilremains,asspeakerstendto<br />

devoidStandardBasqueofphonologicalcharacteristicsthattheyidentifywithdialectal<br />

varieties.6 eresultofthatidenti!cationis,moreo?enthannot,theadoptionofSpanishor<br />

FrenchphonologicalcharacteristicsforthepronunciationofStandardBasque.Speakers<br />

wholearnBasqueasL2tendtoshowthisbehaviour.Ontheotherhand,speakerswho,due<br />

totheirsociologicaland/ordialectalbackground,feeltoodistantfrom theStandardvariety,<br />

tendtorejectitaltoget<strong>here</strong>ven in situationsthatwouldnorm alyrequireaform alregister.<br />

6echalengeforthelinguistisnowto!ndawaytomakeStandardBasque<br />

compatiblewiththedialects.Itwilbearguedthat,forthattobefeasible,(a)oralStandard<br />

cannotbeasuni!edasthewritenone,and(b)themaindialectalcharacteristicstobe<br />

incorporatedontothoseoralstandardsm ustbeverycarefu lychosen,sothattheinevitable<br />

dialectal“los”isacceptabletothespeakers.Forthatendeavourtobesuccesful,thepaper<br />

wilalsoproposethatagreatdidacticeJortshouldbemadeintheteachingofhowdiJerent<br />

sociophonologicalandphonostylisticlevelsshouldgotogetherwithdiJerentdegreesof<br />

dialectpresence.Speci!cexamplesofsociologicalandlingustic(phonological)isueswil<br />

begiven.<br />

Wethinkthatmuchofthevariationthatcoulddevelopfreelyinalanguage,mustbe<br />

consciouslywatchedinaminority-language,andmoresoinalanguagelikeBasque,spoken<br />

in twodiJerentbilingualsetings(theFrench BasqueareaandtheSpanish Basquearea).As<br />

linguists,however,wem ustacknowledgethatthisperspectiveisnotan easyone,and that<br />

wemustbeextremelycarefulnottryingtocontroltootightwhatmustbethespontaneous<br />

evolutionofthelanguage.<br />

Itistheaim ofthispresentation todiscu sourcasewithcoleaguesfrom diJerentbut<br />

comparablelinguisticsetings.


NadiaPetrova,<strong>Leiden</strong> University( eNetherlands)<br />

A Comparative Analysis of Russian and English Usage Guides<br />

from the Twentieth and the Twenty-First Centuries<br />

6epurposeofthisstudywastocaryoutacomparativeanalysisofRusianandEnglishusage<br />

guidesofthetwentiethandthetwenty-!rstcenturiesinthecontextofprescriptivism and<br />

descriptivism.6 eresearchquestionofthepaperwaswhichusageguidesaremoreprescriptive<br />

ordescriptivetheRu sianortheEnglishones.ToanalysethisfourRu sianandfourEnglish<br />

bookswereselected.6 eRu sianusageguidesare:<br />

1) “Co rectnesandpurityofRu siandiscourse”byV.I.sernytev(1914[1970]);<br />

2) ModernRusianUsagebyD.È.Rozental’(1959[1963]);<br />

3) “Let’sSpeakRu sianCo rectly”byM .A.Korolvva(2007);<br />

4) “SpeakandW riteRu sianCo rectly”byD.È.Rozental’(2009).<br />

6eEnglishusageguidesare:<br />

1) eKing’sEnglishbyF.FowlerandH.Fowler(1906);<br />

2) ADictionaryofModernEnglishUsagebyH.Fowler(1926);<br />

3) UsageandAbusage:AGuidetoGoodEnglishbyE.Partridge(1947);<br />

4) eNewFowler’sModernEnglishusagebyR.Burch!eld(1996).<br />

InordertooJerafocusedanalysis,threeusageproblem sweresingledout:<br />

1) theagreem entbetweenthesubjectandthepredicatewithcolectivenouns(a/them ajority<br />

is/are,a/thenumberis/are);<br />

2) thegerundivalconstruction(Ru sian)/thedanglingparticiple(English)(“Roughly<br />

speaking,alm enareliars”Fowlers1906:119);<br />

3) thedegreesofcom parisonoftheadjective(moreequal,in thebrutalestm anner).<br />

Twoapproacheswerefolowedinordertoestimatethedegreeofprescriptivism and<br />

descriptivism intheusageguides.6 e!rstoneisatraditionalapproachwhichtakesinto<br />

accountexplicitevaluativemetalanguageappliedbytheauthors.A secondapproachconsistsin<br />

singlingoutdeonticandepistem icm odalsusedintheentries.<br />

6eresultsoftheinvestigationshowedthattheEnglishauthorsaremorethantwiceas<br />

prescriptiveastheirRu siancounterparts.<br />

References:<br />

Burch!eld,RobertW.(rev.)1996. eNewFowler’sModernEnglishusage[3rded.;1sted.1926].<br />

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPres.<br />

sernytev,V.I.1970.Pravil’nost’i]istotaRuskojRe^i(“Co rectnesandpurityofRu siandiscourse”)<br />

[3 rd ed.].In Izbrannyetrudy(Selected W orks)1,443-641,M oscow:Prosvetwenie.(O riginal<br />

workpublished1914).<br />

Fowler,HenryW.2009.ADictionaryofModernEnglishUsage.[1 st ed.1926repr.with intr.byD.<br />

Crystal]Oxford:OxfordUniversityPres.<br />

Fowler,HenryW.& Fowler,FrancisG.1931. eKing’sEnglish.[3 rd ed.;1 st ed.1906].<br />

Korolvva,M.A.2007.Govorim Po-ruskiPravil’no(“Let’sSpeakRu sianCo rectly”).M oscow:<br />

RosijskajaGazeta.<br />

Partridge,Eric1947.UsageandAbusage:AGuidetoGoodEnglish.London:H am ish H am ilton.<br />

Rozental’,D.È.1963.ModernRusianUsage.(M .A.Green,Trans.,C.V.Jam es,Ed.)O xford,London,<br />

NewYork,Paris:PergamonPres.(Originalworkpublished1959).<br />

Rozental’,D.È.2009.GovoriteiPi_itePo-ruskiPravil’no(“SpeakandW riteRu sianCo rectly”).<br />

Moscow:AjrisPres.


KanavililRajagopalan,StateUniversityatCam pinas(Brazil)<br />

⇡edescriptivelinguist’sdilemmaswhenconfronted<br />

withthechalengeoflanguageplanning<br />

Languagepolicyandlanguageplanninginevitablyinvolveadeliberateinterventionintothe<br />

aJairs– orforthatmater,eventhedestiny–ofalanguageoragroupoflanguages.Itis<br />

prescriptiveparexcelence.Ithasm oretodowith politicsthan linguistics,conceived ofasa<br />

scienti!centerpriseaim edatcom ingtogripswithaprogresivelym oreaccurateunderstandingoflanguage.Itisprecisely<strong>here</strong>thatthetwo–<br />

linguisticsandlanguageplanning–<br />

diverge.For,inupholdingandpursuingitsclaimsofmuch-cherishedscienti!cobjectivity<br />

andvalue-neutrality,linguisticspridesitselfonitsbeingapurelydescriptiveenterprise,<br />

setingasidealtemptationtorecom m end,prescribe,how languageshouldbeusedand<br />

insteadpreferstofocuson how itisactualyused.6 isisjustwhatlanguageplannersand<br />

policymakerscannotaJordtodo,onpainofstrayingawayfrom theirobjectives.<br />

Inm ypresentation,however,Ishalclaim thatevendescriptivelyorientedlinguists<br />

havealalongbeen,o?enunbeknownsttothemselves,covertlyengagedinpromoting<br />

speci!cagendas.Itisalsothecasethatm anylinguistshavefrequentlyweighedinonpolicyrelatedm<br />

atersandlanguagedebateswhilefailingtoappreciatethatthesediscu sionshave<br />

tobeconductedin waysw<strong>here</strong>therulesofengagem entareafarcryfrom thoseobservedin<br />

scienti!ccontroversies.Ishalhoneinonthecelebrated‘Ebonicscontroversy’intheUSto<br />

ilustratem ypoint.<br />

Whatrealymatersinpublicdebatesoverlanguageisuesishowthepersoninthe<br />

streetviewstheirlanguageandwhatitsymbolizestothem .Anyoneinterestedinm aking<br />

senseofsuchhead-onconfrontationsinvolving,ontheonehand,decisionstakenatthe<br />

highestrungsofadministrativeauthorityand,ontheother,publicopinionatlargemustset<br />

asidewhatyearsofwisdom accumulatedbytheadvanceoftheoreticallinguisticshave<br />

taughtusandinsteadtrytounderstandtheworkingsof‘folklinguistics’.InBrazil,afam ous<br />

controversybrokeoutmorethanadecadeagoonthestateofPortuguese,thecountry’s<br />

nationallanguageandthemother-tongueofthevastmajorityofitspeople.6 ecountry’s<br />

linguistsalsojoined thefraysom ew<strong>here</strong>alongtheline.Buttheiratem ptstointervenein<br />

thedebateactualyproducedm oreheatthanlight.(Rajagopalan,2002,2005a,b,2008).6 e<br />

im plicationsaswelasthefaloutfrom thisepisodewilbethecentralconcern ofm y<br />

presentation.<br />

References:<br />

Rajagopalan,K.(2002).Nationallanguagesas2agsofalegiance;orthelinguisticsthatfailedus:a<br />

closelookatemergentlinguisticchauvinism inBrazil.Language& Politics.1(1),115-147.<br />

Rajagopalan,K.(2005a).6 elanguageisueinBrazil:whenlocalknowledgeclasheswith<br />

specializedknowledge.In:SureshCanagarajah(ed.).ReclaimingtheLocalinLanguage<br />

PolicyandPractice.M ahwah,N J:LawrenceErlbaum Publishers.pp.99-122.<br />

Rajagopalan,K.(2005b).LanguagepoliticsinLatinAmerica.AILAReview.vol.18,pp.76-93.<br />

Rajagopalan,K.(2008).6 eroleofgeopoliticsinlanguageplanningandlanguagepoliticsinBrazil.<br />

CurentIsuesinLanguagePlanning9.2.pp.179-19.


HannaRutkowska,Adam M ickiewiczUniversity,Poznan (Poland)<br />

Etymologicalspelinginthirteeneditionsof-eKalenderofShepherdes<br />

6ispapersummarisesthe!ndingsofacorpus-based,qualitativeandquantitativecomparativestudywhichtracestheprocesofintroducingetym<br />

ologicalspelinginthirteen<br />

editionsof eKalenderofShepherdes,acom prehensivecom pendium ofproseand verse<br />

texts,publishedbetween 1506and1656.6 ecorpuscontainsover0.9m ilion words,and<br />

constitutesadatabaseoftranscriptionspreparedbythepresentauthor,andbasedonthe<br />

facsim ilesavailableatEarlyEnglishBooksOnline.6 eanalysed editionsincludeSTC 22408,<br />

STC 22410,STC 22411,STC 22412,STC 22415,STC 22416,STC 22416.5,STC 22419,STC<br />

22420,STC 22421;STC 22422,STC 22423,andWingB713.<br />

Etymologicalspelingisconsideredoneofthemostimportantvariablestobetaken<br />

intoconsideration in theanalysisoforthographicregularisation andstandardisation in<br />

EarlyModernEnglish(Salmon1999).AccordingtoBrengelman(1980:351)“the<br />

LatinizationofEnglishwasaprojectoftheseventeenthcentury”.Hebasedhisopinionon<br />

Mulcaster’s(1582)usage.However,my!ndingsprovethatMulcaster’sreluctanceto<br />

etymologicalspelingdoesnotre2ecteithertheopinionsofothercontemporaryspeling<br />

reform ers,orthoepistsandlexicographers,ortheusagerecordedint<strong>here</strong>levantKSeditions.<br />

Infact,m ostcla sicisingspelingchangesinEnglishseem tohavebeencom pletebythe<br />

beginningoftheseventeenthcentury.<br />

6eprinters’practicerecordedinthecorpushasbeenconfrontedwiththe<br />

recom m endationsofseveralsixteenth-andseventeenth-centurylexicographersand<br />

spelingreform ers.6 isconfrontationhasrevealedthattheviewsofthesescholarscould<br />

nothavetriggeredtheadoptionofetymologicalspelingamongtheprinters,becausethis<br />

trendhadstartedbeforetheirwritingswerepublished.However,theirpublicationscould<br />

havesupportedthealreadyadvancedprocesofspelingmodi!cationandregularisation.<br />

6epresentstudymakespartofapost-doctoralprojectanalysingtheorthographic<br />

system sofearlyprintersofbookspublishedinEnglish.IthasbeenfundedbythePolish<br />

MinistryofScienceandHigherEducation(projectno.NN104055438).<br />

References:<br />

Brengelman,F.(1980),“Orthoepists,printersandtherationalisationofEnglishspeling”,Journalof<br />

EnglishandGermanicPhilology79:332–54.<br />

Mulcaster,R.(1582) e⇠rstpartoftheelementarievvhichentreatethchefelieoftherightwritingof<br />

ourEnglishtung,Vautrou lier,London.<br />

Salmon,V.(1999)“Orthographyandpunctuation”,in eCambridgeHistoryoftheEnglish<br />

Language:Volume I:1476-1776,ed.R.La s,Cam bridgeUniversityPre s,Cam bridge:13–<br />

55.<br />

TextCreationPartnership,EarlyEnglishBooksOnline,lastaccesed25May2012at<br />

.


GijsbertRutenandRikVosters,<strong>Universiteit</strong><strong>Leiden</strong> ( eNetherlands)andVrije<strong>Universiteit</strong>Bru sel<br />

(Belgium)<br />

NegationandprescriptioninthehistoryofDutch<br />

6ehistoryofclausenegationinDutchiso?enconsideredaclasicexampleofJespersen’s<br />

cycle:from OldDutchpreverbalsinglenegation(ne)toM iddleDutchbipartitenegation<br />

(en .niet)and!nalyM odernDutchpostverbalsinglenegation(niet).Bipartitenegationis<br />

saidtohavedisappearedoverthecourseoftheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,when<br />

thestandardlanguagecultureintheprovinceofHolandreacheditspeak(VanderHorst&<br />

VanderWal1979,Buridge1993).W hilethisviewdescribesthelinguisticsituationinthe<br />

NorthernNetherlandsfairlywel(Rutenetal.2012),bothlanguagenormsandusageinthe<br />

SouthernNetherlandswerequitediJerent(Vosters& Vandenbu sche2012).Inthispaper,<br />

wediscusthenormativetraditionintheSouthernNetherlandsintheeighteenthand<br />

nineteenthcenturies,discusdiJerencesandresemblanceswithNorthernprescriptions,<br />

andzoom inonlanguageuseintheSouthinthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenth<br />

centuries.<br />

WewilshowthatSoutherngrammariansstilfrequentlyuseandprescribebipartite<br />

negationuntilthe1750s.A?erthat,theisuemovesoJthelinguisticradar,thusbridging<br />

thenorm ativedividebetweenNorthandSouth.Inlanguageuse,however,bipartite<br />

negationlivedon,aswewilshow throughananalysisofeighteenthandnineteenthcenturysoldiers’co<br />

respondence(VanBakel1977),andofearly-nineteenth-centurycrime<br />

reports,witnesdepositionsandcourtroom indictm ents(Vosters2011).<br />

Ouranalysisbringstogetherthe!nalstageofJespersen’scycleinactuallanguageuse,<br />

andmetalinguisticcommentstriggeredbythevariationoftheoldandthenew typeof<br />

negation.6 iscombinedperspectivealowsustoevaluatetheeJectivenesofprescriptions<br />

onlanguageuse.<br />

References:<br />

VanBakel,J.(1977).VlaamsesoldatenbrievenuitdeNapoleontischetijd.Bruges:O rion.<br />

Buridge,K.(1993).SyntacticChangeinGermanic.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.<br />

VanderHorst,J.& M.VanderWal(1979).“NegatieverschijnselenenwoordvolgordeindegeschiedenisvanhetNederlands”.Tijdschri⇡voorNederlandscheTaal-enLeterkundeXCV:<br />

6-37.<br />

Ruten,G.,M.vanderWal,J.Nobels& T.Simons(2012).“Negationinseventeenth-and<br />

eighteenth-centuryDutch.A historical-sociolinguisticperspective”.Neuphilologische<br />

Miteilungen:323-342.<br />

Vosters,R.(2011).Taalgebruik,taalnormenentaalbeschouwinginVlaanderentijdenshetVerenigd<br />

KoninkrijkderNederlanden.Eenhistorisch-sociolinguïstischeverkenningvanvroegnegentiende-<br />

euwsZuidelijkNederlands.PhD disertation.Brusel:Vrije<strong>Universiteit</strong><br />

Brusel.<br />

Vosters,R.& W.Vandenbusche(2012).“Bipartitenegationin18 th and early19 th centurySouthern<br />

Dutch.Sociolinguisticaspectsofnormsandvariation”.NeuphilologischeMiteilungen113:<br />

343-364.


DickSmakman,LUCL,<strong>Leiden</strong> University( eNetherlands)<br />

InternationaldeBnitionsofthestandardlanguage<br />

6ede!nitionofthestandardlanguageseemsmoreelusivethanthatofthedialect.<br />

Dictionaryde!nitionsof“standard(language)”arelimitedwhilelinguistsapplywildly<br />

diJerentapproacheswhendescribingthislanguagevariety.Layviewsseem highlyrelevant<br />

in thisde!nition,butthesein particularhavenotbeen researchedenough.To!nd<br />

agreementonthelayde!nitionof“standard”,aninternationalsurveywasperformedin<br />

which1,014non-linguistsfrom sevencountries(England,Flanders,Japan,theNetherlands,<br />

NewZealand,Poland,andtheUnitedStates)wereaskedtode!nethestandardlanguagein<br />

theirowncountry.<br />

6eonlyqualitythataroseacrosparticipantsfrom alcountrieswas“lingua<br />

francane s”.Andwhilenewsreaderswerewidelya sociatedwithstandardspeech,this<br />

asociationhasturnedoutnottobeuniversal.6 estrongasociationofstandardlanguages<br />

withaspeci!ccityorregionmayalsobeleswidespreadthaniso?enasumed.6 e<br />

commonasociationofstandardlanguageswithnon-regionalitymayonlybetrueforold<br />

standardlanguages.<br />

Twoparalelstandardlanguagesappear:thesocialydistinctiveone(the“exclusive”<br />

standardlanguage)andthesocialycohesiveone(the“inclusive”standardlanguage).Som e<br />

countriesonlyhavethelater.6 esetwoviewsofthestandardlanguagearearguedtobe<br />

complementaryratherthanmutualyexclusive.<br />

References:<br />

DickSmakman(2012).6 ede!nitionofthestandardlanguage.Asurveyinsevencountries.<br />

InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,218,25-58.


MathijsSmits,Universityof<strong>Leiden</strong>,( eNetherlands)<br />

‘G arnering’Respect?:⇡ eEm ergenceofAuthorityin theAm erican UsageTradition<br />

Prescriptivism anddescriptivism havebeenattheheartofEnglishlanguagediscusionsfor<br />

atleastthepast300years–withfar-reachingconsequencesforthewayinwhichthe<br />

languagehasbeen recorded,taught,and spread throughouttheworld.6 epast100<br />

hundredyearsorso,inparticular,havebroughtthesediscu sionsclosertothepublic<br />

domain,coupledwithtechnologicalimprovementsthathavefacilitatedlinguisticresearch<br />

anddebateconsiderably.However,despiteimprovementsinthequalityandquantityof<br />

linguisticinform ation available,debatesaboutlanguagebecom efractiousand redundant<br />

becauseofthe(supposed)ideologicalincompatibilitybetweenprescriptivism and<br />

descriptivism (Baron1982,Finegan2001,Drake1977).<br />

6ispaperdealswiththehistoricaldevelopmentofthenormativelanguagedebatein<br />

theUnitedStates,withaparticularem phasisontheAm ericanusageguidewriterBryan<br />

Garner.ItdiscusesindetailGarner’squali!cations,aswelastheevolutionofGarner’s<br />

wel-knownusageguide,Garner’sModernAmericanUsage.<br />

6e!rstpartofthepaperdealswiththedescriptive-prescriptivedebatewhichhas<br />

permeatedmanyofthediscu sionsonnormativelinguistics.6 esechaptersdealwiththe<br />

mostimportantcontributionsbyBritishandAmericangrammariansanddevelopmentsin<br />

theAm ericanlinguisticlandscape,includingthefoundationofalanguageacadem y,the<br />

writingsofLindleyMurayandRichardGrantWhite,thedevelopmentof(usage)<br />

dictionaries,usagesurveysanddescriptivelinguistics,andtheimportanceofH.W.Fowler<br />

in theusageguidegenre.<br />

6esecondpartofthepaperisacasestudyofBryanGarner’scontributionstoand<br />

positionwithintheusageguidegenre.Todoso,Icomparethestructureofhisusageguide<br />

tothatofprevioususageguidewritersandascertain hisquali!cationsandm otivation for<br />

writing.InthispartIalsoundertakeasmalsurveyofcommonusageitemsanddetermine<br />

bywhatmethodsGarnerarivesathisjudgments.IemploytheCorpusofContemporary<br />

AmericanEnglish(COCA)andCorpusofHistoricalAmericanEnglish(COHA)inorderto<br />

asesthevalidityandtrustworthinesofthesejudgments.<br />

References:<br />

Baron,DennisE.(1982).GrammarandGoodTaste:ReformingtheAmericanLanguage.New<br />

Haven:YaleUP.<br />

Finegan,Edward(2001).“Usage.”In:JohnAlgeo(ed.),TheCambridgeHistoryoftheEnglish<br />

LanguageVol.6.Cam bridge:Cam bridgeUniversityPre s.358-421.<br />

Drake,GlendonF.(1977). eRoleofPrescriptivism inAmericanLinguistics,1820-1970.<br />

Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.


RobinStraaijer,Universityof<strong>Leiden</strong> ( eNetherlands)<br />

PerspectivesonPrescriptivism:⇡ ereceptionofEnglishusageguides<br />

Despitethefactthatthecodi!cationoftheEnglishlanguagetookplacetwoovercenturies<br />

ago,theneedforprescriptionhasnotabated;rather,theoppositeistrue.IntheAnglo-<br />

Americantradition,usageguidesareposiblythemainsourceofprescriptionfornative<br />

speakers,andpublicdebatesonusageandprescriptivism seem o?entakeplaceinthe<br />

media.<br />

6equestionIwishtoaddresis:Howdoculturalandpoliticalideologiesdrivethe<br />

continuedneedforprescription?Tostarttoanswerthis,Iwanttoinvestigatet<strong>here</strong>ception<br />

of20th-and21st-centuryEnglishusageguidesasaninstanceofacontemporarydiscourse<br />

onprescriptivism.Iwilcomparethelanguageusedinreviewsofusageguidesinthe<br />

popularpreswiththoseinacademicjournalstoseehow laypersonsandlinguistsdiscu s<br />

prescriptivisteJorts.6 epremiseisthatdiscursivediJerencespointtowardsideological<br />

viewsofprescriptionandstandardisation.<br />

Myapproachtothistopicisacorpus-drivencomparativediscourseanalysis(Coter<br />

2003).Ihavecompiledacorpusofreviewsofusageguidesthathaveappearedinthe<br />

popularandtheacademicpreses.Iwilusethenewspapers& periodicals-sectionofthe<br />

BNC-BabyasareferencecorpusinordertodoakeywordanalysisusingWordSmithTools.<br />

Iwilidentifytextualkeywordsanddiscu stheirfunctioninthediscourses(Baker2004)<br />

withreferencetotheirculturalsigni!cance(Wiliams1985).<br />

Mypresentationaimstomakelinguistsmoreawareofandresponsivetotheneedfor<br />

prescriptionthatexistswiththegeneralpublic.Inthissense,thestudyisnotmerelya<br />

descriptivebutacriticaldiscourseanalysisandt<strong>here</strong>forenormative:Iwishtoaddresandif<br />

posiblecorectasocialproblem initsdiscursivecontext(Fairclough2010).<br />

References:<br />

Baker,Paul.2004.QueryingKeywords:QuestionsofDiJerence,Frequency,andSensein<br />

KeywordsAnalysis.JournalofEnglishLinguistics32,346-359.<br />

Coter,Coleen.2003.Discourse&Media.InD.SchiJrin,D.Tannen&H.E.Hamilton(eds.) e<br />

HandbookofDiscourseAnalysis,416-436.Oxford:Blackwel.<br />

Fairclough,Norman.2010.CriticalDiscourseAnalysis:thecriticalstudyoflanguage.2 nd ed.Harlow:<br />

PearsonEducation.<br />

Wiliams,Raymond.1985.Keywords:AVocabularyofCulture& Society.2 nd edn.New York:<br />

Oxford.


DaceStrel0vica-O1i2a,Latvian LanguageInstitute,UniversityofLatvia,Riga(Latvia)<br />

Human-orientedprescriptivism,language-orientedprescriptivism,<br />

error-orientedprescriptivism :som ecro s-culturaldiEerences<br />

6ethreetypesofprescriptivism listedinthetitleoJeratheoreticalframeworkatempting<br />

toaccountforthediJerent,o?en contrastingm anifestationsofprescriptivism andpurism<br />

andthepublicreactionstothem indiJerentcultures.<br />

Whyisitsothatintheanglophonesociety(asobservedbyDeborahCameronand<br />

otherauthors)thelinguistsareo?enheldresponsibleforasupposeddeclineoflanguage<br />

becausetheyhavealegedly“proclaimedtotheworldthatLanguageDoesNotMaterand<br />

mayt<strong>here</strong>forebeusedwithimpunity”(D.Cameron1995,p.x),whiletheLatviansociety<br />

som etim esblam esthelinguistsforalegedlywantingtocontrolthelanguageandtoputitin<br />

astraightjacket?.Nomaterhow exaggeratedthesepublicstereotypesaretoday,theyare<br />

ratherilustrativeofthewayt<strong>here</strong>spectivesocietieshavefeltaboutthelinguistictheoryand<br />

practicetraditionalyoJeredtothem througheducationandothermedia.W hydidthe<br />

English-speakinglinguisticliteraturesopainstakinglycriticizeprescriptivism fornumerous<br />

decadesduringthe20 th century,whilein theLatvian culture,theterm ‘prescriptivism’itself<br />

didnotrealycomeintouseuntilthelate1990s(althoughthephenomenonitselfhaslong<br />

beenpresent)?Andwhy,a?eral,Britishprescriptivism inthepastwasmostlyconcerned<br />

withclas-relatedlinguisticdiJerences,butLatvianprescriptivism –within2uencesfrom<br />

otherlanguages?<br />

Eventhoughprescriptivism andtheconcernaboutlanguagecorectnesis,undoubtedly,afairlyuniversalphenom<br />

enon,itisthecultural,social,political,etc.diJerencesthat<br />

seem tom aterm ostwhenwetrytoprobeitsdepths.Ast<strong>here</strong>sultofseveralyears’ex-<br />

perience(bothpracticalandacademic),IhaverecentlyoJeredandpublicisedtheclasi-<br />

!cationofthesaidthreetypes–human-oriented,language-oriented,anderor-oriented<br />

prescriptivism.6 e!rstterm maybeappliedtothetraditionalBritish(aswelas,e.g.,<br />

AncientRoman)prescriptivism w<strong>here</strong>thegrammaticalfeaturesofthelanguageusedbya<br />

personwouldsignalabouttheirsocial“corectnes”.6 esecondtype,language-oriented<br />

prescriptivism,describesthesituationofLatvia(andothersimilarcommunities,e.g.the<br />

Quebecois)w<strong>here</strong>anationhaslonghadtostriveforitsindependence,andmanifestsits<br />

patriotism byprotectingitslanguagefrom foreignin2uences(andw<strong>here</strong>,mostimportantly,<br />

thexenophobicpurism seem stom olifyandcivilizetheinterethniccontroversies,rather<br />

thantoignitethem ).6 ethirdtype,e ror-orientedprescriptivism ,isaratheruniversal<br />

manifestationofprescriptivism whichcancoexistwitheitherofthe!rsttwotypes(thus,<br />

everycultureseemstohaveits“favourite”languageerors,realorimagined,thatgetmost<br />

publicatentionthroughoutages).<br />

References:<br />

Cameron,Deborah(1995)VerbalHygiene.London:Routledge.


MasimoSturiale,UniversityofCatania(Italy)<br />

PedagogicalPrescriptivism inEarly20th-centuryCorrespondenceLanguageCourses<br />

ACaseStudy:IlPoliglotaM oderno(1905-1907)<br />

YourEnglish letermightbebeterwriten,<br />

butisnotbad.Weshalseeabouttheweekly<br />

paper.[Leterto A.B.–Milan.IlPoliglota<br />

Moderno(1907,isuen.138,p.426)]<br />

IlPoliglotaM odernowasaweeklym agazine(“giornalesetim anale”)dedicated tothe<br />

teachingandlearningoftheEnglish language,publishedin M ilan from 14 th M ay1905until<br />

29 th D ecem ber1907.Itwasedited and directed byErnestoD aNova.In typical18 th -century<br />

stylethesubtitlehas“perimpararesenzam aestrolalinguainglese”orinW iliam Pery’s<br />

words“withouttheaidofamaster”(Pery1795:titlepage).AspointedoutbyMaroger<br />

(2001:223),inherstudydedicatedtotheFrenchversionofthem agazine,“them ethodis<br />

traditionalconcerningtheexercisesandtheglobalapproachtothelanguage,butitintroducesinnovationsincommunicationwithitsusersthroughmailcorespondence”.<br />

6enewsystem devised,de!nedas“facileepiano”oreasyandplain,wasbasedon<br />

“pochivocaboli,pochisim eregole,m oltapratica”(IlPoliglotaM oderno:1905:1),thatis,<br />

few words,veryfew rulesandalotofpractice.Eachle son containssectionson gram m ar<br />

(withexplanation,exam plesandpractice),translation(from andintoEnglish),readingexercisesandexamplesof‘realconversations’,pronunciationtipsandco<br />

respondencew<strong>here</strong><br />

readers’(i.e.students’)feedbacksarecom m entedonandfurtherinstructionsgiven.However,thecourseisperfectlyinlinewith19<br />

th -centurygram m ar-translationcoursebooks<br />

with,touseHowat’sandWiddowson’swords(2004:153),its“stresonaccuracy[.],obsesionwith‘completenes’,andtheneglectofspokenlanguage”.6<br />

eyalsosuggestthat“the<br />

highpriorityatachedtometiculousstandardsofaccuracy[.]wasaprerequisiteforpasingtheincreasingnum<br />

berofform alwriten exam inationsthatgrew upduringthecentury”<br />

(Howat& W iddowson2004:152)inEuropeandtheUSA,aswel(seeBatistela2009).<br />

Inthispaper,Ishaldiscu stheprescriptivistvalue(s)ofIlPoiliglotaasan exam ple<br />

ofearly20 th -centuryItalianco respondenceeducationcoursesfortheteachingoftheEnglish<br />

language,through an in-depth analysisofeach gram m arand ‘m ail’section and the<br />

evaluationofthemetalanguageusedbytheinstructor.<br />

References:<br />

Batistela,E.L.,2009,DoyouMake eseMistakesinEnglish? eStoryofSherwinCody’sFamous<br />

LanguageSchool.Oxford/New York:Oxford UniversityPre s.<br />

DaNova,E.1905-1907,IlPoliglotaM oderno.Giornalesetimanaleperimparare‘senzamaestro’la<br />

linguainglese.Secondoilm etodoDaNova.M ilano:Sonzogno.<br />

Howat,A.P.R.&H.G.Widdowson,2004[1984],AHistoryofEnglishLanguageTeaching.Oxford:<br />

OxfordUniversityPres.<br />

Maroger,N.,2001,“LePoliglotaModernoou un nouvelartd’entendrel’autodidaxieau débutdu<br />

XXesiècle”,QuadernidelDipartimentodiLinguistica,UniversitàdiFirenze,11,pp.201-225.<br />

Pery,W.,1795,TheStandardFrenchandEnglishPronouncingDictionary.London:M u ray.


GiedriusTama1evi4ius,InstitutefortheLithuanian Language,Vilnius(Lithuania)<br />

⇡eideologicalcontextsoflanguagestandardizationinthemedia<br />

6ispaperlooksintothedevelopmentofLithuanianstandardlanguageideologyintended<br />

forthebroadcastm ediafrom thelaunchofthepublicradioservicein 1926tothepresent<br />

tim e.6 reeperiodscanbedistinguishedinthisdevelopm ent:1)buildingoftheindependentLithuanianstateinthe1920sand1930s;2)Sovietizationofthemasmediaduringthe<br />

Sovietoccupation(1940–41and1944–1990);3)cu rentperioda?ert<strong>here</strong>-establishmentof<br />

Lithuania’sindependence(since1990).<br />

6eresearchencompasesthree!eldsofenquiryshapedbytheSLideologyinthe<br />

procesofstandardization:<br />

1. Legislativebasis(lawsandrulesthatprescribetheuseoflanguageinthemedia;<br />

directivesforlanguagecontroletc.)<br />

2. Controlapparatus(reportsfrom theStateLanguageInspectorateandother<br />

controlinginstitutions)<br />

3. Publicdiscourseontheroleofmedialanguage(articles,interviewsandother<br />

materialspublishedinlinguisticjournalsandpresbythelinguists,journalistsand<br />

laypeople)<br />

6eaim ofthestudyistofolowtheformationandimplementationoftheSLideologyin<br />

thebroadcastm ediabyexam ininghow itwasin2uencedbysocialtransform ationsand<br />

changes.<br />

6eresultsofthestudyhaverevealedthatprescriptiverequirementsforthelanguage<br />

ofthebroadcastmediahavenotchangedmuchsincethelaunchoftheradioservicein<br />

Lithuania.Manifestationsofnon-standardformshavealwaysreceivedverystrictcriticism:<br />

useofthelanguagethatdidnotcomplywiththeidealstandardwasconsidered<br />

reprehensibleandintolerable.Folowingthistradition,recenttransform ationsinthesociety<br />

andchangesinthebroadcastmediaarenow seenasathreattothestandardlanguageand,<br />

consequently,asareasontofurthertightent<strong>here</strong>quirements.<br />

References:<br />

CouplandN.,KristiansenT.2011.SLICE:Criticalperspectivesonlanguage(de)standardization.<br />

StandardLanguagesandLanguageStandardsinaChangingEurope.Kristiansen T.,Coupland<br />

N.(eds.).Oslo:NovusPre s,11–35.<br />

HelerM.2010.Media,thestateandlinguisticauthority.LanguageIdeologiesandMediaDiscourse.<br />

Texts,Practices,Politics.Ed.byS.Johnson and T.M .M ilaniLondon:Continuum<br />

InternationalPublishingGroup,277–282.<br />

|epetysN.2012.SovietAuthorities,Linguists,andtheStandardizationoftheLithuanianLanguage.Lituanus58:2,31–43.


LoretaVaicekauskiene,InstitutefortheLithuanian Language,Vilnius(Lithuania)<br />

Joiningscholarshipandstatestandardizationideology:<br />

prescriptionasSovietinheritanceinpost-sovietLithuania<br />

6epresentationdiscusesthepresumableimpactofSovietlanguagestandardization<br />

policiesonlanguageregulationpracticesint<strong>here</strong>-establishedLithuania.Researchof<br />

archivedocumentsandpublicationsonstandardizationisuesfrom theSovietperiodshows<br />

thattheSovietauthoritiesdevelopedanideathatalpubliclanguagehastobecontroledby<br />

theStateinterm sofco rectne s.6 enorm codi!cationcriteriaestablishedbythePrague<br />

schoolwerereadaptedgradualychangingtheircontentandthelogicofscholarship.6 e<br />

diJerencebetweenscholarsandtheideologistsgradualydiminished.<br />

Ipresentanoverview ofprescriptivelegislationsandlanguagecontrolinstitutionsin<br />

presentLithuaniaandcompareitwiththe!ndingsfrom thehistoricalresearch.Particular<br />

atentionisgiventothePraguecodi!cationcriterion‘appropriatenes’.Iarguethatthe<br />

natureandscopeofregulationsoflanguagevariationanddevelopmenttogetherwiththe<br />

involvem entofthescholarshipin theideologicallanguagepreservation workin thepostmodernLithuaniacanbebestexplainedbytheinheritancefrom<br />

Sovietperiod.<br />

Severalotherfactorsthatcouldhavein2uencedLithuanianprescriptivism arealso<br />

discu sed(suchasthelatestandardization,marginalizationoflanguage,romantic<br />

nacionalisticbeliefsetc.,knownfrom theother(smalethnolinguistic)speech<br />

communities)andthespeci!csofLithuaniansituationarehighlighted.<br />

References:<br />

Bermel,Neil.2007.LinguisticAuthority,LanguageIdeology,andMetaphor: eCzechOrthography<br />

Wars.M outon deGruyter:Berlin,New York.<br />

Liebich,Olga.2006.ZurEntwicklungderAueasungvonderSprachnorm undderKodi⇠zierungin<br />

dersowjetischenundrusischenSprachwisenscha⇡.<br />

webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/dis/2007/liebich/liebich.pdf<br />

Milroy,James.2001.Languageideologiesandtheconsequencesofstandardization.Journalof<br />

Sociolinguistics5/4:530-555.<br />

Spitzmüler,Jürgen.2007.Stakingtheclaimsofidentity:purism,linguisticsandthemediainpost-<br />

1990Germany.JournalofSociolinguistics11(2):261-285.<br />

6omasG.1996.6ePragueschooltheoryoflanguagecultivationorpurism bythebackdoor.<br />

Canadianslavonicpapers38,195-204<br />

|epetys,Nerijus.2012.“Languagecanberegulated”–Sovietauthorities,linguistsandthe<br />

standardizationoftheLithuanianlanguage.Lituanus:58(2).<br />

Vaicekauskien},Loreta.2011.‘GoodLanguage’andInsecureSpeakers.FoliaLinguistica.M outon<br />

deGruyter,76-103.


HeimirFreyrVi5arson,UniversityofIceland,Reykjavik(Iceland)<br />

⇡eriseofstandardIcelandicsyntaxinthe19 th century:rewritinghistory<br />

AnemergingstandardvarietyofIcelandicwasamajorfocusofatentioninthe19 th century,<br />

althoughitcountedbynomeansasa!rstatempt.W ritennormshadformedalreadyin<br />

the12 th century,perhapsbestseen asa‘natural’linguisticproce sofselection (cp.H ope<br />

2000).6 esenormscontinuedtobeadoptedandadapted,accordingtosocialand<br />

demographicchanges(Kusters2003).Nationalisticmovementsinthe19 th centuryregarded<br />

this2uxinthestandardasdeterioration.Asaresult,them edievalvarietywas‘legitim ised’<br />

asproperIcelandic,facilitatedbythecodi!cationofOldNorsegrammarbyRaskinthe19 th<br />

century,w<strong>here</strong>itwasequatedwith(anidealisedvarietyof)19 th centuryIcelandic,downplayingthediJerencesbetweenthetwo(O<br />

tóson1990,Árnason2003).<br />

Inthistalk,IwilreportonanongoingstudyoftheeJectsofstandardisationon19 th<br />

centuryIcelandicsyntax,whichaimstoinvestigatetheerasureofsyntacticvariantsandthe<br />

extenttowhichthiscontributedtoits(aleged)uniformity.Iwilfocusonvariationinthe<br />

relativeorderofnegation/adverbs(ADV)andthe!niteverb(Vf.).ADV-Vf.orders,as<br />

opposedtoVf.-ADV,weresingledoutinthe1840sandasociatedwithDanish:<br />

(1) a. .ervérekkiátum voná (ADV-Vf.,“Danish”)<br />

b. .ervérátum ekkivoná‘whichwedidnotexpect.’ (Vf.-ADV,“OldNorse”)<br />

6elinguisticstatusofthevariantsin(1)isamaterofdebate,asIwiladdresinthetalk.<br />

BycomparingdiJerentregistersbeforeanda?erADV–Vf.becamestigmatised,Iwishto<br />

asestheeJectsof19 th centuryprescriptivism .In general,itseem sthatIcelandic<br />

standardisationfocu sedm oreon(stylistic)details,asVanderSijs(2004)alsoconcludesfor<br />

Dutch,thanmajorgrammaticalchangestakingplace,e.g.Verb-Objectplacement;Icelandic<br />

underwentatypologicalshi?from 2exibleOV torigidVO ordersinthe19 th century<br />

(Hróarsdó tir2000).Itistelingfrom anideologicalpointofview thatthechangefrom OV<br />

toVO,apropersubsetoftheOldNorsesystem ,occu redbelow thelevelofconsciousne s,<br />

in contrastto(1).Yet,despitethefactthatboth changesresultedin an increasing<br />

convergencewithDanish,theVO orderswereneverperceivedassuch.<br />

References:<br />

Árnason,K.2003.Icelandic.In:GermanicStandardizations:PasttoPresent,pp.245-279.Ana<br />

Deumert&Wim Vandenbusche(eds.).JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany:Amsterdam/Philadelphia.<br />

Hope,J.2000.Rats,bats,sparowsanddogs:biology,linguisticsandthenatureofStandard<br />

English:6 eories,Descriptions,Con2icts.In: eDevelopmentofStandardEnglish1300-<br />

1800,pp.49-56.LauraWright(ed.).CambridgeUniversityPres,Cambridge.<br />

Hróarsdótir,Å.2000.WordOrderChangeinIcelandic:From OVtoVO.John Benjam ins<br />

PublishingCompany,Amsterdam/Philadelphia.<br />

Kusters,W.2003.LinguisticComplexity: eIn↵uenceofSocialChangeonVerbalIn↵ection.PhD<br />

disertation,<strong>Universiteit</strong><strong>Leiden</strong>.<br />

O tóson,K.G.1990.Íslenskmálhreinsun:sögulegty⇠rlit.Íslenskm álnefnd,Reykjavík.<br />

VanderSijs,N.2004.Taalalsmensenwerk:hetontstaanvanhetABN.Sdu Uitgevers,Den Haag.


DouglasWilkersonandKyokoTakashi,NagoyaUniversityofForeign Studies,Nagoya(Japan)<br />

Democracy of Signs: Prescription and Liberty in Japanese Names<br />

6eJapaneseMinistryofJusticelimitsthesymbolswhichmaybeusedinwritingnew<br />

personalnamestoalistof2,857(withanadditional230variantforms),thevastmajorityof<br />

whichareChinesecharacters.<br />

6eMinistryofEducation(Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnology)promotesa<br />

morelimitedlist,andprescribesarestrictednumberoftraditionalreadings(pronunciations)forthesenon-alphabeticsymbols,buttheM<br />

inistryofJusticepermitst<strong>here</strong>gistrationofvirtualyanyreadingforthesesignswhichconform<br />

stotraditionalJapanese<br />

phonology,includingfanciful,idiosyncratic,andforeign-in2uencedreadings.<br />

6ispaperexaminesthedevelopmentoftheseparadoxicalpoliciesfrom thelate<br />

1940stothelatestrevisionstothelistpromulgatedin2010.<br />

WhileitappearsthattheoriginalinsistenceoftheMinistryofEducationonlimiting<br />

thenum berofperm isiblesym bolsandreadingsinfavorof“dem ocracy”hasbeen<br />

gradualymodi!edbytheM inistryofJusticeinfavorofgreaterpersonalliberty,itwilalso<br />

beshownthatbothbureaucraciesactedtoconserveelementsoftraditionalJapanese<br />

culture,andtostrengthentheirownbureaucraticindependence.<br />

6eresultingregulationsexhibitacombinationofprescriptivepublicconformity<br />

withprivateindividuallibertycharacteristicofmanyotherJapaneseinstitutions.<br />

References:<br />

AtsujiTetsuji.2010.Post-warHistoryofJapaneseCharacters(SengoNihon kanji-shi).Tokyo:<br />

Shinchosensho.<br />

EnmanjiJiro.2005.Post-warHistoryofCharactersforPersonalNames(Jinm eiyou-kanjinosengoshi).Tokyo:Iwanam<br />

ishinsho.<br />

YasuokaKouichi.2011.NewCharactersforCommonUseandPersonalNames:HistoryofCharacter<br />

Restrictions(Atarash ijouyou-kanjitojinm ei-kanji:kanji-seigen norekishi).Tokyo:<br />

Sanseido.


PublicSymposium<br />

“W ieisdebaasoverdetaal?”(W hom akestherulesinalanguage?)<br />

OnSaturday15June2013,LUCLisorganisingapublicsymposium.6iseventwilbe<br />

mostlyin Dutch.<br />

PublicSymposium ⇡ eme<br />

Alstaalnormenenregelshee?,wiebepaaltdiedan?Enwiehandhaa?deorde?Enopwelkemanier?W<br />

ieiser,kortom,debaasoverdetaal?Isdatbijvoorbeelddeoverheid,zijnhet<br />

deskundigen,ofwordtdenorm helemaaldemocratischbepaald.<br />

VoorhetNederlandsblijkendemeesteregels(“zegniet‘hunhebben’maar“zijhebben’”,<br />

“‘groterals’isfout,‘groterdan’isgoed”)in geen enkeloP cieeldocum enttezijn vastgelegd.<br />

DeNederlandseTaalunie,hetoverheidsorgaanvoortaalbeleid,hee?weldespelingbijwet<br />

vastgelegd,maarnietdegrammatica.Zoudatmoetenveranderen?<br />

Zou iemand naardieregelswilen luisteren?En hoeisdatin andereculturen georganiseerd?<br />

PublicSymposium organisers<br />

JaapdeJong<br />

MarcvanOostendorp<br />

PublicSymposium contactdetails<br />

Website htp:/www.hum.leiden.edu/lucl/prescriptivism-conference/news/taalsymposium<br />

-2013.htm l<br />

Email lucl-sym posium @ hum .leidenuniv.nl


MAPOFTHELIPSIUSBUILDING

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!