here - O - Universiteit Leiden

media.leidenuniv.nl

here - O - Universiteit Leiden

Organisingcommitee

eFourthPrescriptivism Conference2013is

organisedattheUniversityofLeidenby

IngridTieken-BoonvanOstade(LUCL)togetherwith

TonvanHaa)en(LUCL),

RikkaLänsisalmi(LUCL& LIAS),

MaartenMous(LUCL)and

JeroenW iedenhof(LUCL& LIAS)

Conferencesupport

EsrihBakker(LUCL)

AnneRoseHaverkamp(LUCL)

Onlineaddreses

Website www.hum.leiden.edu/lucl/prescriptivism-conference

Email prescriptivism-conference@hum.leidenuniv.nl


FourthConferenceonPrescriptivism

Folowingthreehighlysuccesfulearlierconferences–She9eld(2003),Ragusa(2006)and

Toronto(2009)–thenextConferenceonPrescriptivism ishostedin eNetherlandsby

theLeiden UniversityCentreforLinguisticsin colaboration with theLeiden Institutefor

AreaStudies,from 12to14June2013.

eLeidenUniversityCentreforLinguistics(LUCL)engagesinteachingaswelasresearch

in awidevarietyoflanguagesoftheworld,rangingfrom so-caled W estern languagestothe

languagesofAfrica,Eurasiaand indigenousAm erica. eLeiden InstituteforAreaStudies

(LIAS)representsm ultidisciplinaryapproachestothestudyofAsiaandtheM iddleEast.

⇠eme

Itisfrom thevariousresearch perspectivesem bodied in theseinstitutesthatweproposed

thethem eoftheconference:PrescriptionandTraditioninLanguage.

DiAerentlanguageshaveundergonediAerentstandardisationprocesesinthecourseof

theirhistories.Forsom e,such asEnglish and Dutch,standard languagesdeveloped from

theRenaisanceonwards,whileforotherlanguages,e.g.BasqueorIndonesian,standardisation

wasinitiatedonlyrelativelyrecently.

Whatevertheirdurationanddistribution,althesedevelopmentsreCectaperceivedneed

forprescription,whichitselfderivesfrom linguistic,cultural,religious,ideological,political,

educationalandothersources. esefactorso)enoccurincomplexcombinations;modern

examplesaretheo9cialstatusofEnglishinCameroonandofM andarininTaiwan.

Context

isFourthConferenceonPrescriptivism isprecededbyapre-conferenceworkshop“Atitudesto

prescriptivism”on 11June.Folowingtheconference,apublicsym posium entitled

“W ieisdebaasoverdetaal?”(W homakestherulesinalanguage?)wilbeheldon15June.

elatereventwilbemostlyinDutch.

eorganisationofthisconferencehasbeensponsoredbyLeidenUniversityFund(LUF),

bytheLeiden UniversityCentreforLinguisticsand theNW O projectBridgingtheUnbridgeable.

IngridTieken-BoonvanOstade

TonvanHaa)en

RikkaLänsisalmi

MaartenMous

JeroenW iedenhof

Leiden,June2013


Pre-ConferenceWorkshop

“A titudestoprescriptivism”

OnTuesday11June2013,LUCLwilorganiseapre-conferenceworkshop. isworkshopis

freeforalconferencedelegates.

Pre-ConferenceWorkshoptheme

Dra)softhepaperscirculateamongtheparticipantsoftheworkshopbeforehand. isway

thereistim eforalparticipantsto read them aland prepareconstructivefeedbackforthe

beneKtofthepapers’authors.

isworkshopfeaturespapersthatinvestigatelanguage users’atitudes towards prescriptivism

andothernorm ativeactions,prim arilyfrom thepointofview oftherecipients

ofsuch actions,such asthegeneralpublic,institutionsand speciKcprofesionalgroups

(linguists,journalists,educators,bloggers,etc.). efocusismainlyonEnglish,butproposalsonotherlanguagesarealsowelcome.

eformatisfolows:thereare30-minuteslots,eachwith10minutesforashortpresentationofthepaper,folowedby20minutesfordiscu

sionandfeedback.

Pre-ConferenceWorkshoporganisers

RobinStraaijer

CarmenEbner

ViktorijaKostadinova

MoranaLukaN

Pre-ConferenceWorkshopcontactdetails

Website www.hum.leiden.edu/lucl/prescriptivism-conference

Email prescriptivism-conference@hum.leidenuniv.nl


PROGRAMMESCHEDULE

Tuesday11June

14.00-17.00 Registration,room :Lipsius001

Wednesday12June

8.30-10.00 Registration,room :Lipsius001

Pre-conferenceWorkshop:“A titudestoPrescriptivism”

Venue:Lipsius,Room 148

Conference:“PrescriptionandTraditioninLanguage”

10.00-10.15 Conferenceopening

byProf.C.J.J.M .Stolker,rectormagni4cusandpresidentoftheUniversityofLeiden

room :Lipsius005

Plenary

10.15-11.15

CarolPercy,Aristocraticin↵uenceandtheEnglishprescriptivetradition:LordChester⇠eldandhisa⇡erlives

Chair:IngridTieken-BoonvanOstade;room:Lipsius005

11.15-11.45 COFFEE/TEA

SesionsA & B MORNINGSESSION A,LIPSIUS005,CAROLPERCY

11.45-12.15 HenriLePrieult,W hatdid custom m ean forthe4rst

Englishgrammarians:afriendorafoe?

12.15-12.45 NataliaGuermanova,A ePrincipleofIconicityin

EnglishPrescriptiveGrammar

MORNINGSESSION B,LIPSIUS148,R IKKA LÄNSISALMI

KyokoTakashiWilkersonand DouglasWilkerson,

DemocracyofSigns:PrescriptionandLibertyin

JapaneseNam es

12.45-14.00 LUNCH


(Wed 12 June – continued)

Sessions A & B 1 ST AFTERNOON SESSION A, LIPSIUS 005, MASSIMO STURIALE

14.00-14.30 Don Chapman, Prescriptive rules as a tradition in the

United States

14.30-15.00 Matthijs Smits, ‘Garnering’ Respect?: The Emergence

of Authority in the American Usage Tradition

1 ST AFTERNOON SESSION B, LIPSIUS 148, GIJSBERT RUTTEN

Heimir Freyr Viðarsson, The rise of standard Icelandic

syntax in the 19th century: rewriting history

15.00-15.30 COFFEE/TEA

Session

2 ND AFTERNOON SESSION, LIPSIUS 005, ROBIN STRAAIJER

15.30-16.00 Gijsbert Rutten and Rik Vosters, Negation and

prescription in the history of Dutch

16.00-16.30 Lars Hinrichs, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi and Axel Bohmann,

Unusually strong impact of prescriptive rules on

language use: The case of object-function restrictive

relativizers in written standard English

17.00-19.00 DRINKS, VENUE: SCHELTEMA LEIDEN, MARTSTEEG 1

Thursday 13 June

Plenary

9.30-10.30

Henning Klöter, “What is correct Chinese?” revisited

Chair: Jeroen Wiedenhof; room: Lipsius 028

10.30-11.00 COFFEE/TEA


(7 u13June–continued)

SesionsA & B MORNINGSESSION A,LIPSIUS028,D ICK SMAKMAN

11.00-11.30 MasimoSturiale,PedagogicalPrescriptivism in Early

20th-centuryCo respondenceLanguageCourses.A

CaseStudy:IlPoliglotaM oderno(1905-1907)

11.30-12.00 KatjaLochtman,Prescriptivism and sociolinguistic

competenceinGermanasaForeignLanguageatUniversity

12.00-12.30 DominikBanhold,Germ an SchoolGram m arsas

Norm SetingLanguageAuthoritiesinNationalistic

Germanyofthe19thCentury

12.30-14.00 LUNCH

SesionsA & B 1 ST AFTERNOON SESSION A,LIPSIUS003,D ON CHAPMAN

14.00-14.30 GabrielaE.Dima,Prescription and Tradition in the

RomanianLiteraryLanguage

MORNINGSESSION B,LIPSIUS148,W ENDYAYRES-BENNETT

SpirosA.Moschonas,Non-uniform standards:A e

caseofStandardM odernGreek

ArtoMustajoki,Chalengesin thestandardization of

contemporaryRu sian

NadiaPetrova,A com parativeanalysisofRu sian and

Englishusageguidesfrom thetwentiethandtwenty-

4rstcenturies

1 ST AFTERNOON SESSION B,LIPSIUS148,RIK VOSTERS

HannaRutkowska,Etym ologicalspelingin thirteen

editionsofTheKalenderofShepherdes

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

FrenchDictionnairedel’Académie(1635-)totheoL cial

Frenchlanguageenrichmentproces(-2013)

15.00-15.30 RitaQueirozdeBarros,“A higherstandard ofco rectnesthanisquitedesirable”:Linguisticprescriptionin

Ostade,A ebatleofprescriptivism :FrancevsEngland

WendyAyres-Bennetand IngridTieken-Boonvan

Dickens’sjournals


(Thu 13 June – continued)

15.30-16.00 COFFEE/TEA

Session

2 ND AFTERNOON SESSION, LIPSIUS 003, FELIX AMEKA

16.00-16.30 Kazuhiko Nakae, From Prescriptivism to Purism in

Multiglossic Arabic

16.30-17.00 Loreta Vaicekauskiene, Joining scholarship and state

standardization ideology: prescription as Soviet inheritance

in post-soviet Lithuania

19.00-23.00 CONFERENCE DINNER (registration required)

Friday 14 June

Plenary

9.00-10.00

Felix Ameka, The uselessness of the useful: between prescriptivism and practice

Chair: Florian Coulmas; room: Lipsius 005

10.00-10.30 COFFEE/TEA

Sessions A & B MORNING SESSION A, LIPSIUS 005, MAARTEN MOUS MORNING SESSION B, LIPSIUS 148, DANIELLE CANDEL

10.30-11.00 Miren Lourdes Oñederra, Basque pronunciation:

dialectal richness vs. strength of the Standard in a

minority language

Mark Kaunisto, Guidebooks on English usage in light

of corpus evidence: are the entries truly warranted?

11.00-11.30 Robin Straaijer, Perspectives on Prescriptivism: The

reception of English usage guides

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

Attitudes to English Language Use on the Internet

12.00-13.30 LUNCH


(Fri14June–cont.)

SesionsA & B AFTERNOON SESSION A,LIPSIUS005,NATALIAGUERMANOVA AFTERNOON SESSION B,LIPSIUS148,H ENNING KLÖTER

13.30-14.00 DickSmakman,Internationalde4nitionsofthe

standardlanguage

14.00-14.30 GiedriusTamaDeviEius,A eideologicalcontextsof

languagestandardization in them edia

14.30-15.00 KanavililRajagopalan,A edescriptivelinguist’s

dilemmaswhenconfrontedwiththechalengeof

languageplanning

15.00-15.30 COFFEE/TEA

Plenary

15.30-16.30

MartinGil,A ediscom fortofstrangers:nostalgia,

ideologyand defenceoftheEnglish speech com munity

DaceStrelFvica-ODiGa,Hum an-oriented prescriptivism,language-orientedprescriptivism,eror-oriented

prescriptivism:somecros-culturaldiPerences

FlorianCoulmas,Prescriptivism andwritingsystems

Chair:TonvanHaaQen;room:Lipsius005

16.30-17.00 Conferencecloses:Prof.T.vanHaaQen,directorLeidenUniversityCentreforLinguistics,room:Lipsius005

Saturday15June

Publicsymposium (primarilyinDutch):“W ieisdebaasoverdetaal?”(W homakestherulesinalanguage?)

Venue:KleinAuditorium,Academiegebouw


Plenaries

in chronologicalorder


Wednesday12June,10.15-11.15

CarolPercy,UniversityofToronto

Aristocraticin↵uenceandtheEnglishprescriptivetradition:

LordChester⇠eldandhisa⇡erlives

In thisplenary,Iusethe!gureofPhilip Dorm erStanhope,thefourth EarlofChester!eld

(1694–1773),to explorethesigni!canceofaristocratsto eighteenth-century English prescriptivism

.

LordChester!eldappearsinseveralaccountsaboutsomeearlydevelopmentsofthe

tradition.In som eofthem ,hehasclearprestigeforsom esoon-to-bein2uentialcodi!ers.It

iswelknown,forinstance,thatSam uelJohnson dedicated thePlan(1747)forwhatwasto

behisfamousDictionary(1755)to Chester!eld.M oreover,although theelocutionistand

futureorthoepist,theIrishm an 6 om asSheridan deliberatelydid notdedicatehisplan for

British Education (1756)to Chester!eld,Lacking hispermision,Sheridan nevertheles

beganhisplanwithan“Addres”toChester!eld,inhiscapacityastheformerSecretaryof

StateforIreland(1745–46).

YetotheraccountsfeatureChester!eldasasymbolofaristocrats’decliningculturallinguisticin2uence.AsSheridanwasseekingthelord’ssupportforhisplantostandardize

spoken English,Johnson had becom e fam ously estranged from his prospective patron:

indeed,theDictionary’ssupportby such bookselersasRobertD odsley ratherthan by patronsorinstitutionsisregardedasarepresentativedevelopm

entin theprogre sofprintculture,theshi?

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

partareactiontosomeesaysinDodsley’speriodical eWorld,in which Chester!eld had

expresedmockanxietyaboutthein2uenceon theforthcomingDictionaryofwom en and

oforallanguage.Infact,whenitwaspublishedthedictionarywasinnovativelyilustrated

withliteraryquotations.

In oneoftheseesaysfor eWorld,Lord Chester!eld had also contrasted whathe

described aspedanticand politespelings.6 isexaggerated opposition between elitemen

and women wasre2ected severaldecadeslater,when somefemalereaderscriticized the

masculine aristocratic valuesexpre sed in Chester!eld’spersonalletersupon the leters’

posthumouspublicationin1774.Intheseleters,writenduringthe1740sandearly1750s

tohisilegitim ateson,Chester!eldem phasizedthefactthatlanguageconstructsratherthan

re2ectsone’sim ageandstatus.Renaisanceconductbookswouldhavem adesim ilarpoints,

butinthispaperIam keentocontextualizeChester!elddeeplyandbroadlyinthe1740s,a

periodpredatingtheproliferationofprescriptivegrammarsandthusseeminglykeytothe

developmentofthetradition.Ishalalsodraw onandfurtherpublicizerecentresearchon

such topicsasprestigein languageand historyand on therelation ofhigh socialclasto

corpus-basedaccountsoflanguagevariationandchange.


6ursday13June,9.30-10.30

HenningKlöter,Georg-August-Universität,Gö tingen

“W hatisco rectChinese?”revisited

YuenRenChao(1892–1982)wasoneofthemosteminentChineselinguistsandlanguage

plannersofthe20 th century.In hisearlycareer,heplayed an im portantrolein thedevelopmentanddocumentationofastandardMandarinpronunciation.HislandmarkGrammar

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

overviewsofMandarin.OneofChao’sleserknowncontributionsisabriefarticleentitled

“W hatIsCo rectChinese?,”published in 1961 in the Journalofthe Am erican Oriental

Society.In thisarticle,Chao re2ectsupon co rectpronunciation,co recttranslationsof

foreign wordsand propernam es,and co rectne sin gram m ar.Hisanalysiscenterson the

early 20 th century when,forthe !rsttime in Chinese history,a nationalpronunciation

standardwascodi!ed.Inthe!rstpartofmypresentation,Iwilgiveabriefintroductionto

Chao’sworkinthecontextoflanguageplanninginthisperiod.Inthesecondpart,Iwil

apply Chao’shypothesesconcerning “co rectChinese”to cu rentlanguagetrendsin the

Chinese-speakingworld.IwilarguethatlanguageplanninginChinaa?er1949hasprovided

much clearerguidelinesagainstwhich co rectnesin variousareasoflanguageuse

canbemeasured.Atthesametime,however,prescriptiveguidelinesandtheirimplementation

aresubjectto variousrenegotiationsand chalenges.6 esearediscu sed in thecontext

ofthemarginalization ofsouthern varieties,theinternationalization ofChineselanguage

teachingandagrowingdependenceofyoungspeakerson new m edia.


Friday14June,9.00-10.00

FelixAmeka,Leiden University

euselesnesoftheuseful:betwenprescriptivism andpractice

Havinganorm maybeausefulideaandhavinganideologyaboutappropriateandcorect

languageusem aybeausefulidealbutwhen itcom estolinguisticpractice,thisisusele s.I

wildiscuscasesofvariousideologiescenteringonprescriptioningrammartolinguistic

purism regardingisuesofcodeswitching,boroweditemsandgenerationaldiJerencesin

languageuse,whereolderpeopleperceiveyoungeronesasnotspeakingwel.6 eseisues

wilbediscusedinthecontextofexperiencesinlanguagedocumentationinmultilingual

setingsinW estAfrica.


FlorianCoulmas,Germ an InstituteforJapaneseStudies,Tokyo

Prescriptivism andwritingsystems

Friday14June,15.30-16.30

InthispaperIexam inetheroleofwritingsystem sinprescribingrulesoflanguage.

Linguisticprescriptivism cannotbesensiblyanalysedwithoutaproperunderstandingof

therelationshipbetweenwritingandlanguagebecausewritingisboththeprincipal

instrum entandtheobjectoflanguagecultivation.Setingnorm sandstipulatingusagefor

writenlanguageismorecommonandmoreeJectivethanforspeech,andwhereacorect

pronunciation(orthoepy)isprescribeditismoreo?enlaiddowninwritingratherthan

entrustedtooraltradition.However,therelationshipbetweenwritingandspeechisa

simplem appingrelationbetweengraphicalandphoneticunitsinexceptionalcasesonly.

Becauseofthehistoricityoflanguageandtheasynchronouschangeofspeechandwriting

thisrelationshipistypicalym oreorle scom plex.6 israisesseveralquestions:

1.how diJerentwritingsystemscanbeutilizedforpurposesofprescribingusage;

2.whatitisthatcanbeprescribed;

3.how writingsystemsaresubjectedtoprescribednorms;and

4.how prescriptivenormsthatrefertothegraphicmakeupofthesystem interactwith

thoseconcerningrelationsbetweengraphicsignsandunitsoflanguage.

6esequestionswilbediscusedfrom acomparativeperspectivetakingvariouswriting

system sintoconsiderationinordertoelucidatehow prescriptivelinguisticnorm sare

aJectedbywriting–andviceversa.


Abstracts

in alphabeticalorder


WendyAyres-BennetandIngrid Tieken-BoonvanOstade,UniversityofCam bridge(UK)andUniversityof

Leiden( eNetherlands)

⇡ebatleofprescriptivism:FrancevsEngland

6eliteratureonprescriptivism frequentlyasertsthesameapparenttruismsaboutprescriptivism

inFranceandEngland.Atthebeginningofthe20 th century,thegreathistorian

oftheFrenchlanguage,FerdinandBrunot(1966: I,4)claimedthat‘6 ereignofgrammar

[ .]hasbeenlongerandm oretyrannicalinFrancethaninanyothercountry’,andthisidea

wasrepeatedbyRodneySampsonin1993,whoclaimed‘Fewlanguageshavebeenexposed

in such asustainedwaytoprescriptivein2uencesasFrench.Forthepastfourcenturies,

oPcialandunoPcialbodiesandindividualshavesoughttodirectthelanguage,andmany

ofthesehavecommanded,andcontinuetocommand,veryconsiderableatentionand

favouram ongsttheFrench’.

Discusionofprescriptivism inFrancetheno?encentresontheworkofthe17 th -

centurygrammariansandremarqueurs,theroleoftheAcadémieFrançaiseandotherbodies

concernedwiththeFrenchlanguage,andtheimpactoftwentieth-centurylinguisticlegislation

(Ayres-Bennet2010).AsforEngland,theFrench Academ yisusualyheld upasan

exampleofwhatwouldbeneededtoregulatetheEnglishlanguage:thiswasthecaseinthe

early18 th century,butasim ilaratitudecan stilbefound am ongthegeneralpublictoday.

Inarecentpublication,HenryHitchingswrotethat‘English-speakersaretouchy

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

becom ingm oreprescriptiveaboutlebon usagethan

theFrenchinspiteofthelackofanAcadem y?Andistheenorm ouspopularityofusage

guidesintheUK today(Bu seandTieken-BoonvanOstade2011)symptomaticofthisrise

in prescriptivism ?

Inthispaperwewouldliketocom parethediJerenthistoricalandsocioculturalcontextsin

whichprescriptivism arosein FranceandBritain,leadingtodiJerentapproachesto

thesubject(e.g.therelativeim portanceofoP cialbodiesandprivateinitiatives),andthen

examinewhetherthisresultsinprescriptivism beingmanifestedindiJerentwaystoday.

References:

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

ofIdeasLecture,CambridgeOctober2010.

Buse,UlrichandIngridTieken-BoonvanOstade(2011).“TowardsaCorpusofPrescriptivism”.

PaperpresentedattheHelsinkiCorpusFestival,Helsinki(Finland),September/October

2011.

Brunot,Ferdinand(1966)Histoiredelalanguefrançaise,vol.3.Paris:A.Colin.

Hitchings,Henry(2011). eLanguageWars.AHistoryofProperEnglish.London:John M u ray.

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


DominikBanhold,Departm entofGerm an Linguistics,UniversityofW ürzburg(Germ any)

GermanSchoolGrammarsasNorm SetingLanguage

AuthoritiesinNationalisticGermanyofthe19 th Century

Inthe19 th centuryGerm anydeveloped from alooselypost-Napoleonicfederation ofup to

39membersintoonenationleadbyanemperor.Duringthecenturytherewasaconstant

riseinnationalism whichwasnotrestrictedtopoliticalidealslikeliberalism and

constitutionalism buthadahugeimpactonthedevelopmentoftheGermanlanguagethat

cannotbeoverestimated.Asitalwayshasbeen(e.g.modernEurope),thelongingforone

nationbroughtuptheproblem of‘one’languagespokenbythewholenation.6 eneedfor

prescriptionbecameobvious(s.Polenz1999:232).Norm bookslikegrammarsand

languageguidesbecam everyproductivein thattim e(s.Klein 2003).In research,aspecial

interestwaspaidtothein2uenceofsuch norm bookson theevolvingofaGerm an “leading

variety”(s.Reichmann1990:141)andtothehistoryofthestigmatizationofspeci!c

grammaticalforms(s.Davies/Langer2006).

Inm ypresentationIwilfocusonaspecialkindofnorm books,nam elyschool

grammars.W hatpositionwere19 th centuryschoolgram m arssupposed totakein the

standardisationprocesoftheGerm anlanguage?6 ereisnoempiricalstudythatwouldbe

abletoiluminatetheroleofgrammaticalvariantsinschoolgrammars.Basedonmy

doctoraldisertationprojectIwildiscu sthreequestions:

a)W hat(quantitative)roledomorphologicalvariantsplayinGermanschoolgrammarsof

the19 th century?

b)How arethesevariantspresented?W hatinformationisgiven?

c)How arethevariantsevaluated?W hatprescriptivestrategiesareused?

Givinganswerstothesequestionsisacrucialpartof!guringouttheimportanceofschool

grammarsnotonlyforthestandardisationprocesoftheGermanlanguagebutforthe

pasingonofcertainmorphologicalvariants,fortheformationofevaluationtraditionsand

thein2uencethatpoliticalandculturaldevelopm entshaveontheim partm entoflanguage

(norm )knowledge.6 elinkingoftheresultstocu rentlanguageteachingis!nalyopento

discu sion.

References:

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

an:PastandPresent.Frankfurt:PeterLang.

Klein,WolfPeter(2003):SprachlicheZweifelsfälealslinguistischerGegenstand.ZurEinführung

in ein verge senes6 em aderSprachwisenscha?.Linguistikonline16.

Polenz,Petervon(1999):DeutscheSprachgeschichtevom SpätmitelalterbiszurGegenwart.19.

und20.Jahrhundert(Vol.3).Berlin:deGruyter.

Reichmann,Oskar(1990):SpracheohneLeitvarietätvs.SprachemitLeitvarietät.In:WernerBesch

(ed.):DeutscheSprachgeschichte.Grundlagen,M ethoden,Perspektiven.Frankfurt:Peter

Lang.


RitaQueirozdeBaros,FacultyofLetersoftheUniversityofLisbon (Portugal)

“A higherstandardofcorrectne sthanisquitedesirable”:

LinguisticprescriptioninDickens’sjournals

6oughgeneralyasociatedwiththegrammaticaltraditionofthe18 th century,thebelief

thatsom eform soflanguagearem oreco rectthanothers,whichJ.andL.M ilroyhave

term edtheideologyofstandardization (1999),waspervasivein 19 th centuryBritain (Beal,

2009).

CharlesDickensworkedinthisprescriptiveseting.Itwasagainstthisbackground

thathem asterlyexploiteddia-,socio-andidiolectalvariation.Togetherwithhisabilityto

“deployeveryavailablelinguisticresource”(Ingham ,2008),thistraitofhisstylehasearned

him theepithetsoflinguist(Quirk,1974)andsociolinguist(Pou sa,1999).

ButnovelsarenotthesingletestimonyofDickens’smetalinguisticinterest.His

activityasajournalistprovidesevidenceofthesamesort,ashintedbyBoltonandCrystal

(1969:1)andcon!rm edinaprelim inaryanalysisofthewritingsontheEnglishlanguage

publishedinHouseholdWordsandAltheYearRound(Ba ros,2012),twoweeklym agazines

directedbyDickensandrecentlymadeavailableinDickensJournalsOnline(Drew,2012).

6ispaperwilrevisittheabovementionedperiodicals,withtheparticularaimsof

evaluatingtherelevanceofprescriptivistsandprescriptivism inarticlesdevotedtothe

Englishlanguage,andofdiscusingtheirexpectedlycomplexapproach(es)tosuchisue.

6isanalysiswilbearinmind(i)Percy’sconclusionsonthetiesbetweenthepublishingof

review periodicalsandtheriseofprescriptivism (2009)and(i)Dickens’ssophisticated

senseoflinguisticappropriatenesandsubscriptionofthepo sibilityof“ahigherstandard

ofco rectnesthanisquitedesirable”(Payn,1857).

References:

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

conferenceCharlesDickensandhisTime–UniversidadeNovadeLisboa,18-20June.

Beal,J.(2009)“6 reeHundredYearsofPrescriptivism (andCounting)”.InCurentIsuesinLate

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

55.

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

Drew,J.(dir.)(2012)DickensJournalsOnline.(www.djo.org.uk)

Ingham ,P.(2008)“6 eLanguageofDickens”.In ACompaniontoCharlesDickens,ed.David

Paroisien.Oxford:BlackwelPublishingLtd,doi:10.1002/9780470691908.ch8.

Milroy,J.&L.Milroy(1999)AuthorityinLanguage.InvestigatingStandardEnglish(3rded).

London& New York:Routledge.

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

Percy,C.(2009)“PeriodicalReviewsandtheRiseofPrescriptivism:theMonthly(1749–1844)and

CriticalReview(1756–1817)intheEighteenthCentury.”InCurentIsuesinLateModern

English.117-150.

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

&Philadelphia:JohnBenjam ins,27-44.

Quirk,R.(1974)“CharlesDickens,Linguist”,in eLinguistandtheEnglishLanguage.London:

EdwardArnold,1-36.


CharloteBrewer,HertfordColege,OxfordUniversity(UK)

Poets,grammarsanddictionaries

6erelationshipbetweengreat(or‘great’)literatureandlanguagehaso?enbeenproblematic,andhasnotinfrequentlyraisedquestionsrelatingtoprescriptivism

andco rectnes.

SometimesithasseemedthatcanonicalauthorshavehadadeterminingeJectonthe

Englishlanguage,onewhichotheruserswoulddoweltofolow.6 usHoccleveclaimedin

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

fairelangage’,andLydgate(LifeofOurLady,c.1416)explained thatthenatureofthis

contributionlayinthespeci!calyliterarycharacteristicsofChaucer’slanguage:

AndekemymaisterChaucerisygrave

6enobleRethor,poeteofBrytayne

6atworthywasthelaurertohaue

Ofpoetrye,andthepalmeateyne

6atmade!rste,todistileandtorayne

6egoldedewe,dropes,ofspecheandeloquence

Intoourtunge,thurghhisexcelence

Andfondethe2oures,!rsteofRhetoryke

OurRudespeche,onlytoenlumyne

6atinourtunge,wasnevrenoonhym like.

Hundredsofyearslater,J.H.Newmanalsoobservedthatgreatwriterscrucialyin2uenced

thelanguageofeveryoneelse,describinghow the‘sayings’of‘agreatauthor.pa sinto

proverbsamonghispeople,andhisphrasesbecomehouseholdwordsandidiomsoftheir

dailyspeech,whichisteselatedwiththerichfragmentsofhislanguage’(Ideaofa

University,1873).

Atthesametime,however,thoseconcernedwithmakinggrammarsanddictionaries

haveo?encriticizedthelanguageofsuchwriters.JohnsonquotedPope,Drydenand

Addisonhundredsoftimesinhisdictionary,butcensoredthem forwhathecaled

‘Barbarous,orim pure,wordsand expre sions’;Lowth repeatedlycited Shakespeare,M ilton,

Pope,Addison,Prior,andDryden(amongothers)inhisGrammarasexamplesofpoor

usage(asdiscu sedinstudiesbyPercyandTieken-BoonvanOstade);andtheOED,

althoughitseditorJ.A.H.M u rayspeci!ed‘althegreatEnglishwritersofalages’asthe

mainsourcesforthatgreatdictionary’sstockofover!vemilionquotations,occasionaly

markedexamplesoftheirusageas‘catachresticoreroneous’,proscribingthem witha

specialsymbol(theparagraphm ark).6 ispaperexam inessom efeaturesofthewaythat

recordersoflanguagehaverespondedprescriptivelyorproscriptivelytotheworksof

creativewriters,lookingbothatwhattheyhavesaidaboutsuchwritersandathow they

haveregisteredthelanguageofpoets,novelistsetcintheirownworks.


UlrichBu se,M artin LutherUniversity,Hale-W itenberg(Germ any)

⇡enativespeakerisdeadvs.⇡enativespeakerisalive:

WhosenormsdoELFsneed?

TheglobalspreadofEnglishhasledtotheconceptionofanumberofmodelsaccountingfor

them anyform sandfunctionsofEnglishintheworld(seeM cArthur1998:Ch.4).Even

thoughitisabitoutdated,theKachruvianm odelwithitsso-caledthreeconcentriccirclescan

serveasastartingpoint.Traditionaly,intermsofnormsthem othertonguecountries,where

Englishisspokenasanativelanguage[ENL]areregardedasnorm-providing,thecountries

andareas,whereEnglishhasthestatusofasecondlanguage[ESL]asnorm-developing,and

thecountriesoftheexpandingcircle,inwhichEnglishistaughtasaforeignlanguage[EFL],as

norm-dependant.

Gnutzmann(2012:315)observesthatwhiletheconceptofStandardEnglishhas

beencriticizedbylinguistsandeducationalistsintheUK,“itsusefulnesasamodelforthe

teachingofEnglish asaForeign Language(EFL)wasnotaJectedbysuch considerations,and

wasverymuchtakenforgranteduntilafewyearsago.”

However,overthepasttento!?eenyears,academicinterestintheuseofEnglishasa

linguafranca[ELF]hasgrown.6 edevelopm entofaspecialcorpus,caledVOICE[= Vienna-

OxfordInternationalCorpusofEnglish],byBarbaraSeidlhofer,andarecentlyestablished

academicjournal[=JournalofEnglishasaLinguaFrancawitha!rstisueinMarch2012]

testifytotheliveline softhisnew researcharea.In thefram eworkofthisresearch,doubtshave

beenraisedastowhetherStandardEnglishandhencenativespeakernormsarestilvalid

modelsforEFL(andESL).

Inarecentarticle,BarbaraSeidlhofer(2012:79)discu sesasoneveryprom inentexampletheuseoftheprepositionaboutfolowingtheverbdiscus,!ndingthatsuch

aconstruction

isusedwidelyin ELFinteractions,butthatdictionariesandgram m arspurportingto

addresadvancedlearnersofEnglishandtheirneeds,“includingthosebasedon‘international

corpora’,emphasizehow eroneousthisusageis.6 eOxfordAdvancedLearner’sDictionary

oJersa‘Help’noteundertheentrydiscusanddriveshomethemesagegraphicalywith

strike-outfont:Youcannotsay‘discu saboutsom ething’:‘Idiscu sed aboutm yproblem with

myparents’.”

6epointofdepartureofthepaperathandistoinvestigateaselectionofrecentlearner’s

dictionariesandgrammarsandtoscrutinizehow theyhandlesimilarcasestodiscovertheir

practice(andtheunderlyingnorms)andthenask(andposiblyanswer)thefolowing

questions:

–Couldandshouldtheyimplementother(i.e.non-native)norms?

–Canthesebeabstractedasastatisticalnorm from acorpussuchasVOICE?

–How shouldadictionaryentryre2ectingELF-normslooklike?

References:

Gnutzmann,Claus(2012):“TeachingEnglishinaGlobalisedWorld:DoesitMakeaDiJerence?”In:

Schröder/Bu se/Schneider,eds.,315-327.

McArthur,Tom (1998): eEnglishLanguages.Cam bridge:CUP.

Schröder,Anne,UlrichBu seandRalfSchneider,eds.(2012):Codi⇠cation,CanonsandCuricula.

DescriptionandPrescriptioninLanguageandLiterature.Bielefeld:Aisthesis.

Seidlhofer,Barbara(2012):“6 eChalengeofEnglishasaLinguaFranca”.In:Anglistik:International

JournalofEnglishStudies23.1:73-86.


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

Prescriptionandtradition,from theFrenchDictionnairedel’Académie

(1635-)totheo8 cialFrenchlanguageenrichm entproce s(-2013)

Linguisticdiversityandlinguisticenrichmenthavebeenproblematicforgrammariansand

linguistsinvolved in lexicographyorterm inology,and forgovernm entsaswel.Franceisa

goodexample,astheFrenchAcademy(“Académiefrançaise”)wasoPcialyestablishedin

1635withthetaskofactingasanoPcialauthoritywithregardtolanguage.Animportant

isuein com m unication being,attheendofthe20 th and thebeginningofthe21 st centuries,

thedevelopm entofscienti!candtechnicallanguage,oP cialrecom m endationsdealingwith

usageofscienti!candtechnicalwordsareregularlybeingpublishedbytheFrenchState.

6eserecommendationsorprescriptionsoriginatefrom the“Frenchlanguageenrichment

proces”(“procesusd’enrichisementdelalanguefrançaise”,1996-),inwhichspecialistsof

diJerent!eldsandlinguistsacttogether,mostlyinordertoproposeandrecommend

FrenchwordsinsteadofAnglo-americanloan-words,inanoPcialmanner.Itis

noteworthythatsomeactorsofthe“Frenchlanguageenrichmentproces”team arealso

partoftheteam helpingconstructingtheFrenchAcademyDictionary(Dictionnairede

l’Académ ie)inits9 th edition.Itisalsoworth underliningthattheAcadem yonlyrecently

begantogiveexplicitprescriptions,inits9 th ongoingedition;theAcadem yeven publishes

theseprescriptionsseparately.InpointingouttheevolutionoftheDictionnairede

l’Académ iein itsprescriptivetradition,weplan todiscu safew resem blancesbetween the

FrenchAcademictradition(1635-)andtheFrenchlanguageenrichmentproces(1996-)

andanalysetherespectiveprescriptionactivitiesofbothinstitutions,aswelastheirresults.

WewilalsoshowhowtheoldFrenchprescriptivetraditioniscontinuouslyimproving.

References:

Candel,D.,2010,«Dénommeretdé!nirenlexicographieetenterminologie»,L’Archicube9,114-

121.

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

FranceTerme,TouslestermespubliésauJournaloL cielparlaCommisiongénéralede

term inologie,htp:/franceterme.culture.fr/FranceTerme/

Quemada,G.,1997,«Neuvièmeédition1986-1992,PréfaceetAvertisement»,dansB.Quemada,

dir.,LesPréfacesduDictionnairedel’Académiefrançaise1694-1992,Paris,Cham pion,453-

508.

Rey,C.,2011,«Les‘Recommandationsnormatives’delaneuvièmeéditionduDictionnairede

l’Académ iefrançaise»,Carnetsd’AtelierdeSociolinguistique5,59-82.

Rey,C.,2011(ed.),«LeDictionnairedel'Académiefrançaise:unmodèlequitraverselessiècles»,

Étudesdelinguistiqueappliquée163.


DonChapman,Brigham YoungUniversity,Provo,Utah(US)

PrescriptiveRulesasaTraditionintheUnitedStates

Prescriptiverules,astheyhavebeencodi!edinusagehandbooksandtaughtinschoolsin

theUnitedStates,havecom etoconstitutetheirowntradition.Som eprescriptiverules,like

lesvs.fewerorim plyvs.inferhavebeen pa sed on from handbooktohandbookand from

teachertostudenttothepointthattheirbelongingtoacanon ofusagerulesm aywelhave

becomeasimportantasanyoriginalreasonforpromotingtheserules.Knowingthem

cariesmuchvalueinitself.InBourdieu’sterms,theyconstitutesymboliccapitalthatcanbe

convertedintoculturalandeconomiccapital(1991).IneJect,thetraditionofprescriptive

ruleshasbecom eanimportantsourceofauthorityforindividualprescriptiverules.How

thattraditionworksasatraditionwilbethesubjectofthispresentation.

6etraditionalnatureofprescriptiveruleshasbeenfrequentlyremarked(Petersand

Young1997;Meyers1995;Algeo1992).W hatdeservesmoreatentionisthewaythatthe

workingsofatraditionconfervaluetotheknowledgetransmitedinthattradition.An

im portantroleoftradition,assuggestedbytheword’setym ology,istopa son item sof

im portance,in thiscase,theprescribedandproscribedvariantsofseveralconstructions.In

thisaction,atraditionm ustbeatoncestableand2exible.Itm ustappeartobestable

enoughforrecipientstotrustthevalidityofthetransmiteditems,yet2exibleenoughto

accommodatenew informationandneeds.Somewaysthattraditionsmanagethese

contradictoryimpulsesaretoreifythetransmitedinformationandtopresentnew

inform ation within theestablishedgenresandform ulations.New inform ation isnot

presentedasnew information,butinsteadasanelaborationofwhathasalreadybeen

accepted.

Intherhetoricoftheprescriptiverules,thesestrategiesareevident.W ithsom e

notableexceptions(Meriam-Webster1994,Peters2004),theprescriptiverulesinmost

usagehandbooksarepresentedasiftheirjudgmentswerealreadyestablishedandnot

subjecttoscrutiny.Yetthetraditionitselfism oredynam icthanthisrhetoricwouldsuggest,

asnew rulesareadoptedandsomeoldonesdiscarded,withlitleexplicitnotice.By

perpetuatinginformationasifitwerealreadyandalwaysaccepted,theprescriptive

traditionacquiresstrongstayingpower.6 ispaperwildraw uponspeci!cprescriptive

rulesfrom varioususagehandbookstoilustratetheworkingsofthistraditionintheUnited

States.

References:

Algeo,John.1991.SweetaretheUsesofDiversity.Word(42):1-17.

Bourdieu,Piere.1991.LanguageandSymbolicPower.Ed.John B.6 om pson.Trans.Gino

RaymondandMathewAdamson.Cambridge:PolityPres.

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

Meyers,WalterE.1995.“LinguisticsinTextbooks:AForty-YearComparison”AmericanSpech

(70):30-68.

Peters,Pam.2004. eCambridgeGuidetoEnglishUsage.Cam bridge:Cam bridgeUniversityPre s.

Peters,Pam andWendyYoung.1997.EnglishGrammarandtheLexicographyofUsage.Journalof

EnglishLinguistics(25):315-31.


GabrielaE.Dima,SectiadeItaliana,Universitatea“Al.ICuza”,IaOi(Rom ania)

PrescriptionandTraditionintheRomanianLiteraryLanguage

6ispaperintendstopresentsomepeculiaritiesofthelinguisticsystem ofRomanianinits

historicaldevelopment,withparticularregardtothe18 th century.

OldRomanianreachedarelativelyunitarycharacterby1750.Laictranslations

cariedoutduringthefolowingperiod,whichrepresenttheonlyform oflaicliteraturein

Romanian,werein2uencedbyWesternEnlightenmentandalowedthepenetrationof

severalelem entsfrom thepopularlanguagewhileextendingthenumberofinnovations.

AccordingtoEugenioCoseriu(Introducereinlingvistica,Cluj,1975),ataparticularm o-

ment,someinfrequentphenomenaareseenas“erors”bytheoldsystem consideredto

representthe“prescription”,buttheybecom einnovations,endingtobeacceptedasregular

elementsofthenew system.

Wewilthereforepresentasigni!cantnumberofexamples,extractedfrom the

RomanianCyrilicmanuscriptsthathavebeenlitleinvestigatedsofar,toilustratethe

linguisticchanges,thereasonsbehind thesechangesand their!nalacceptanceasprescriptiveelem

ents.Am ongthenum eroussituationsencountered,weshalprovideexamples

atphonetic,morphologicalandlexicallevel.Forinstance,inphonetics,theoldlanguage

usedtheverbalform adePchide,whilein the18 th centurya“mistakenform”,adeschide,

appeared,generalizedandbecamecompulsoryinthemodernliterarylanguage.Asfaras

morphologyisconcerned,articledformsoftherelativepronouncare,speci!ctotheold

language(carea,carele,cari),wereabandonedinfavouroftheunin2ectedform .Lexical

wavingbetweentraditionandinnovationisparticularlyspectacular.6 echangeinthe

!eldsofinterestduringEnlightenmentdeterminedthedevelopmentoffunctionalstyles

andimposedanincreaseinthenumberofneologisms,necesaryforanadequatecommunication.6

us,theretookplacesigni!cantchangesofvocabularywithinanevolutionincludingtwophases.6

e!rstneologismshadaphoneticadaptationandamorphological

determinationaccordingtothetraditionalneo-Greekin2uence.Asaresult,togetherwith

Greekwordssuchasdiadoh,ipocrisis,itichi,ametahirisi,perierghie,tropos,Latin-rom ance

loanswereadapted in thesam eway:apublicarisi,arecomandarisi,atradisi,teoreticos.6 e

secondphasem eantadeparturefrom theprevioustraditionsthatcouldnot,however,be

substitutedbyadiJerentnorm .6 econsequencewasthatthephoneticaspectoftheloan

waspreserved,makingthusposibleanimmediateidenti!cationofthesourcelanguage:

academisian,meta⇠zisian,pansion,senser(from French),arhivum,consilium,presidens,

universitas(from Latin),calitá,neutralitá,prigionier,stravaganRS(from Italian),etc.

6elanguageevolution,thecommoneJortsoftheRomanianintelectuals,the

establishmentofaprescriptivegrammaranddictionary,thesubstitutionoftheCyrilic

alphabetwiththeLatinoneconditionedtheformationofthemodernRomanianLiterary

language.


PieterDuij,FryskeAkadem y–KNAW ,Departm entofLinguistics,L euwarden ( eNetherlands)

TowardsamodernFrisianStandard

Frisian,theGermaniclanguagespokeninthenorthernDutchprovinceofFriesland,has

forcenturiesbeenmainlyaspokenlanguage.Sinceabout1900thewritenuseofFrisian

hasincreased,foralargepartduetotheso-caledFrisianM ovement.6 is,consistingof

individuals,groupsandinstitutions,hassincethenineteenthcenturybeenendeavouring

tostrengthenthepositionofthem inoritylanguageintheNetherlands.(About55% ofthe

inhabitantsoftheprovinceofFrieslandhasFrisian astheirm othertongue;almostal

FrisiansspeaksandwritesDutchperfectly).Inthelastdecadeofthetwentiethcentury

FrisiangotthestatusofthesecondoPciallanguageoftheNetherlands.W hilesincethe

RenaisanceinWesternEuropeLanguagebuildershavebeenmakingeJortstostandardise

languages,standard languagesbecam eaccepted generaly.6 estandardisation proce sof

FrisianwasdiJerentanditstilis(Feitsma(1989);Breuker(2001).6 estandardforFrisian

hasnotcrystalizedoutyet(DuijJetal2008).Inpractice,thismeansthatseveralvariant

form sandpronunciationsareaccepted.6 isin spiteofthehundredyearsoldhistoryof

Frisiandictionaries.Alsointhenineteenthcenturythe!rstmoreorlesoPcialFrisian

orthographyruleswerepublished.ButliketheFrisianstandardtheserulesarenotfuly

prescriptive.Frisiansdon’thaveaspelingguideliketheDutchGroeneBoekje.However,

sincethebeginningof2012thelinguisticdepartm entoftheFryskeAkademyisworkingon

thecom pilingofastandardwordlistoftheFrisianlanguage.A wordlistwithstandard

orthographyrules.6 echoiceforastandardwordlist,impliesthatthecompilershaveto

makealotofchoicesmore.Whichdialectform hastoreceiveaplaceinthedictionaryand

whichnot?Orisitnecesaryordesirabletogivetwoorevenmorevariantsaplaceinthe

guide?

Inm ycontributionIwanttodescribewhatworkhastobedoneonastandardfor

Frisian.IwanttodothisonthebasisofdiJerencesbetweenthevarietyofFrisiandialects.

Ofcourse,sincethewritingtraditionofFrisianalotofstandardizationchoiceshavebeen

made,andIwanttodescribewhyjusttheseweremade.Isthistraditionalwaysleadingfor

thecom pilersofthenew standardwordlist,ordotheyhavetom aketheirownchoices?

References:

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

axNiem eyerVerlag.711-721.

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

Akademy,AFUK.

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

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


MartinGil,ÅboAkadem iUniversity,Turku (Finland)

⇡ediscomfortofstrangers:nostalgia,ideology

anddefenceoftheEnglishspeechcommunity

SpeakingtoConservativepartymembersin2011,BritishPrimeM inisterDavidCameron

highlightedthe“discomfortanddisjointednes”experiencedbyinhabitantsof“real

communities”facedwithanin2uxof“new people”unabletospeaktheirlanguageand“not

realywantingorevenwilingtointegrate”.

Hismesagewasalsoclearlyaimedatawiderandnow increasinglyvocalBritish

audience,hostiletomulticulturalism ,scathingaboutperceived‘politicalcorectnes’–

whowouldconcurwiththemotion proposedin aSpectatordebateattheRoyalGeographicalSocietyin

M arch2012that,regardingimmigration,“Enoughisenough”

(cariedby178votesto85).

Underpresurefrom populardiscoursesdominatedbysuchviews,m anycountries

arewitnesingtheresurgenceofmonoculturalideologies,including(re)enforcementof

regulatedlanguagenormsandanincreaseddeterminationtoregardthenationalpolityas

stable,hom ogeneousandmonolingual.

Cameron’scommentsreflectapolicyworldshapedbyandresponsivetosuch

asumptions,wheretheintegrityoftheEnglishspeechcommunityisnow seentobein

urgentneedofdefence.Atthesametime,hisimageofhom ely,plain spoken,monoglot

Britainoverunbydangerouslyincom prehensibleoutsidersbelongstoafam iliartradition

ofnationalrhetoricalself-imagining.Drawingonananalysisofexamplesfrom recent

British politicalandmediadiscourse,thispaperwilexaminecu rentmanifestationsof

thistradition,inparticularitsuseindiscursiveboundarymaintenance,norm enforcement,andtheresultingpositioningof‘others’inrelationto‘Britishnes’/‘Englishnes’.

ItwilsuggestthatspeakingEnglishplaysakeyrole:atonceasimplerequirement

andanimposibleideal,aclosedcategorythat“newpeople”arenotautomaticalyfreeto

join,eveniftheyareunderrelentlespresuretodoso,andeveniftheirnotjoiningis

interpretedasanactivechoiceontheirpart,henceproofofunsuitability.

6atsuchviewscanbemaintainedinthefaceofaneverydayrealityin which m ultilingualandmultiethnicidentitiesareincreasinglythenorm

suggeststhatwhatisneededis

acriticalyinform edchalengetothebasisoftheseexclusivediscoursesthemselves.


NataliaGuermanova,M oscow StateLinguisticUniversity(Ru sia)

⇡ePrincipleofIconicityinEnglishPrescriptiveGrammar

Criticsofprescriptivetraditiono?enclaim thatoneofitsmainfalacieswas,togetherwith

theexce sivefocusonsocialprestigeandasubjectiveapproachtostandardization,thelack

ofatheoreticalbasis.However,acloselookatprescriptiverulesshowsthatthe18 th century

prescriptivegrammarandthephilosophicaltraditionofthetimehavemanymorepointsof

intersection than itiso?en believed.

6eunderlyingprincipleofprescriptivism,basedonLocke’sconceptoflinguistic

sign,wastheisom orphism oflanguageandthought.Itwasbelievedthatiflanguagewas

usedimprecisely,itdistortedthemeaningthespeakerwastryingtoconvey,whichresulted

in “thecheatofwords”.Consequently,m anyprescriptivestricturesm adeuseofthedistinctionsbetween

gram m arform stoenablespeakerstoexpre sasm anysubtlesem anticnuancesaspo

sible.6 ewel-knownexamplesarerulesconcerningagreementbetweensubject

andpredicate,wordorder,theuseofarticles,diJerentiatingpartsofspeechandformsof

iregularverbs,theprohibition tousethatin relativeclausestodistinguish them from

objectclausesetc.

Viewed inasemioticperspective,theserulesledto theincreaseindiagrammatic

iconicityin StandardEnglish.6 us,m any(perhapsm ost)gram m arruleswerebasedon

fundam entalprinciplesoficonicity,whichclaim thatdiJerentconceptsareexpre sedby

diJerentforms(diJerentiationprinciple),similarconceptsareexpresedbysimilarforms

(analogyprinciple),wordorderindicatesrealorconceptualdistancebetweenreferentsor

theirpragm aticvalue(proxim ityprinciple)etc.AccordingtoNaturalne shypothesis

(T.Givon,J.Haiman,W.Dreslerandothers)iconicsignsareseenasmorenaturalthan

arbitraryones.Ifthisisrealyso,theaccentoniconicityinprescriptivegrammarcouldbe

seenasnotsoarti!cialasitiso?enstated.

6egrowingcriticalatitudetoprescriptivegrammarinthe19 th centurycan beexplained,amongotherfactors,bytheshi?inthephilosophicalcontext,as,beginningwith

theepochofRom anticism ,Locke’sconceptoflinguisticsigngavewaytoHum boldtian

viewsonlanguage.Humboldtunderstoodlanguageasapowerfulcreativeforce,shapingthe

geniusofthenation.Hedevelopedanew conceptionofperspicuity,whichwasnomore

seenasanobjectivepropertyoftext,butratherasashi?ingpsychologicalfactor.6 usthe

discrepancybetweenlanguageandthoughtemergedasanintegralantinomyofhuman

communicationwhichwasnottobecorectedbyman.NeithercouldSchleicher’sorganic

conceptoflanguageasanaturalphenomenonindependentofman’swilserveasatheoreticalbasisforstandardization.W

henprescriptiveruleslosttheirtheoreticalgrounding,

theybegantoberegardedaspurelyform alandsuper2uous,whichexplains,ifpartialy,the

criticalatitudetoprescriptivetraditioninmodernlinguistics.


LarsHinrichs 1 ,BenediktSzmrecsanyi 2 andAxelBohmann 1 , 1 UniversityofTexasatAustin(USA),

2UniversityofManchester(UK)

Unusualystrongimpactofprescriptiverulesonlanguageuse:

⇡ecaseofobject-functionrestrictiverelativizersin writenstandardEnglish

Whilethein2uenceofgrammaticalprescriptivism onactuallanguageuseisgeneralyconsideredtobeweak,thecaseofrelativizerselectioninStandardEnglishrestrictiverelative

clausesprovidesastrongcounter-example.Inthelate20thandearly21stcenturies,variation

between thethreepo sibleform sisnolongerfreefrom prescriptivein2uence.M ost

writersnowhaveastylisticpreferencebetweenwhich,that,and zeroin asentencelike is

isthehouse___Jackbuilt.In theprescriptiveusageliterature(e.g.Fowler,1965;Strunk&

White,1999),theoptionthathasbeenstronglypropagatedsincetheearly20 th century.O ur

papertakesacorpus-based,statisticalapproachtothiscaseofvariation.

Inordertobeterunderstandwhythisparticularprescriptionhasgainedsom uch

groundinwritenStandardEnglishwhileothershavenot,wetapthepart-of-speech-tagged

Brownfamilyofcorpora(Hinrichs,Smith,& Waibel,2010)inamultivariateapproach.

Usingsemi-automatedproceduresofdata-extractionandcoding,wecompiledadatasetof

N=6,061objectrelativeclausesfrom BritishandAmericanEnglish,publishedinequal

amountsinthe1960sandthe1990s.W eapproachedthechoicebetweenwhich,thatand

zeroastheresponsevariable(casesofwho(m)(se)-,where-andwhyasrelativizerswere

excluded)andcodedeachoccu renceformorethanfortyindependentfactors.6 ese

includenotonlytheusualfactorsrelatedtolinguisticcontextsuch asthepartofspeech of

theantecedent,orthem ostrecentselectionofrelativizerm adebythesam ewriter(totest

form orphosyntacticpersistence),butalsothefrequencyofotherfeaturesthatarethe

subjectofprescriptivistdiscourse.Forexample,wequanti!edforeachcorpus!lethe

proportionofverbsinpasivevoicevs.active,strandedprepositionsasproportionofal

prepositionsused,thefrequencyofsplitin!nitivesandtheuseofshalversuswilasmodal.

Weanalyzedthedatausingunivariateanalysis,multilevellinearmodeling,multilevel

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

betweenthe1960sand90sismanifestedasadramaticdropinthefrequencyofwhichselection,m

ostlyinfavorofthatbutalsoofzero.Inotherwords,theprescriptivistrulehas

eJectivelyamountedtowhich-proscription.(2)Otherareasofgram m arthatprescriptivism

hastriedtoin2uence(e.g.pasivevoiceproscription)havealsochanged,sometimesalonga

sim ilartrajectory.However,analysisatthelevelofdiJerenttextualgenresfailstoshow

co relation.W eproposethatthese!ndingspointtowardthestrongidiosyncrasyof

individualprescriptiverules.

References:

Fowler,H.W.(1965).ADictionaryofModernEnglishUsage.(E.Gowers,Ed.)(Reprint.).ClarendonPres.

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

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

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


MarkKaunisto,UniversityofJyväskylä(Finland)

GuidebooksonEnglishusageinlightof

corpusevidence:aretheentriestrulywarranted?

6ispaperlooksintoEnglishguidebooksonlanguageuse,withspecialatentiongivento

thequestionoftheselectionofitem sastheirentries.Suchreferencebookshaveingeneral

shownvaryingdegreesofprescriptivenes;forexample,asrem arkedbyCrystal(2009),

som eofthecom m entariesinFowler’sclasicADictionaryofModernEnglishUsage,originalypublishedin1926,maybecharacterisedasprescriptive,whereasothersaremore

descriptiveandacceptingofperceivedchangesinthelanguage.Itisonlyfairlyrecentlythat

referencebooksonlanguageusehavebeenconsciouslyputtogetherbym akinguseoflarge

databasesofauthentictexts,notableexamplesbeingtheworksbyGarner(1998)andPeters

(2001).6 eanalysisofauthenticcorpusdataprovidesam oreobjectiveviewpointintothe

isuesconcerninglanguagevariation andchange.

Consideringguidebooksingeneral,wemaystilaskwhatkindsoffactorshaveledto

theselectionofentriesinthem :althoughthedescriptionsm adeintheentriesm ay

nowadaysbebasedonstudiesofauthenticdata,whyhavetheauthorschosentocoverthose

particularquestionsaboutlanguageuse?AsChapman(2009)hasobserved,tradition

probablyplaysanimportantpartinthesetupoftheentries.Ontheotherhand,itisevident

thatatsom epointcertainisueslosetheirrelevance,resultingfrom eitherclearlanguage

change(e.g.,undesiredformsorexpresionsarenolongerused)ormorewidespread

acceptanceoftheusesearlierregardedassubstandard.A goodexampleoftheeJectof

traditionisthecoverageofsplitin!nitives:althoughtheyarenowadayscom m only

accepted,theisueisstilo?endiscu sedinusagemanuals.

Mypaperexaminestheentriesinvolvingrivalwordswhichsharethesamerootbut

havediJerentsuPxes.Suchitemsarefrequentlycommentedoninguidebooksonlanguage

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

observestheoccu rencesofentriesintenguidebooks(publishedinthelast20years)in

lightofthefrequenciesofco respondingrivalword pairsin largeelectroniccorpora,the

100-milion-wordBritishNationalCorpusandthe450-milionwordCorpusof

ContemporaryAmericanEnglish.Althoughmerefrequencydatadoesnotfulyexplain

whydiJerentexpresionsarediscusedinguidebooks,thestudyaskswhethercertain

paterns(suchasrivalsuPxpairs)orindividualwordpairstendtodraw moreatention,

relativelyspeaking,thantheywouldappeartodeservebasedoncorpusevidence.

References:

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

ay2,

2009.

Crystal,David(2009)IntroductiontoADictionaryofModernEnglishUsage:theClasicFirst

EditionbyH.M .Fowler,editedbyDavidCrystal.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPres.

Garner,Bryan(1998)ADictionaryofModernAmericanUsage.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPre s.

Peters,Pam (2001) eCambridgeDictionaryofEnglishUsage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Pres.


ViktorijaKostadinova,LUCL,Leiden University( eNetherlands)

⇡eCyberstateofLanguage:PopularAtitudestoEnglishLanguageUseontheInternet

Inam uchcitedbookonlinguisticcleanline s,DeborahCam eronnotesthatthe‘stateofthe

language’isa‘discursiveconstruct’ratherthan ‘an objectivedescription ofcertain linguistic

phenomena’(Cameron,1995:213).Inlightofthisobservation,theprescriptivist-descriptivistdebateisacon2ictofdiscoursesthatinevitablyco

relatewith othersocial,politicaland

culturalfactors.6 emotivationsbehindtheproductionandmaintenanceofacertaindiscourseofproperusage,oraperceived‘state’oftheEnglishlanguage,varyaccordingtothe

contextinwhichtheyareproduced.AsBealhasshowninthecaseofco rectpronunciation

in English,thediscoursesaccom panyingcertain atitudestowardsinco rectpronunciation

re2ectcontemporarysocialconditions(2008).In18th-and19th-centuryEngland,co rect

pronunciationfacilitatedsocialadvancementandsignaledacultivatedbackground.

Inco rectpronunciationwasgeneralyconsideredvulgarandem ba ra sing,andforwom en

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

eandpoorself-representationthatis

asociatedwithnon-standardpronunciation.

6egoalofthepresentstudyistoprovideevidenceforandinsightintothechanges

whichsuchpopulardiscoursesonlanguagecorectneshaveundergonewiththeadventof

computer-mediatedcommunication(CM C).6 elastdecadehasseenamasiveexpansion

ofelectroniccommunicationthroughsocialnetworksites(SNSs).6 ishasbroughtabouta

proliferationofinformalcommunicationamongpeoplefrom alovertheworld.Inturn,

thesenew socialcom m unitieshavecreatednew contextsforlinguisticproductioninwhich

thequestionofco rectusageisregularlyraised.6 ispaperwilpresentresultsfrom an

onlinesurveyinvestigatingthecu rentsituationwithpopularatitudestowardsusageon

Facebook.6 eworkingconclusionsfrom thesurveysuggestthatnew levelsofproblematic

usagehaveemerged,suchastheinterchangeableuseoftheir,there,and they’re,and that

languageuseisa sociated m orestronglywith self-representation and personalorgroup

identities.Atthesam etim e,theexpre sedatitudesdisplaygreatvariation which calsfora

new researchmodel.6 ispaperwillastlyprovideadetailedoverview ofthecu rent

spectrum ofpopularatitudestothisparticulartypeof‘electronic’languageusageinthe

contextoftheirsocialcontextandtracethechangesthathaveoccu redinthisarena.

Reference:

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

Beal,C.Joan,CarmelaNocera,andMasimoSturiale(eds.),PerspectivesonPrescriptivism.

Bern:PeterLang.Cameron,Deborah.1995.VerbalHygiene.London and New York:

Routledge.


HenriLePrieult,EnglishDepartm ent,UniversityofToulouse(France)

Whatdidcustom m ean fortheBrstEnglish gram m arians:afriend orafoe?

6ispaperaimsatanalysingthereferencestotheconceptof‘custom’inthe!rstgrammars

ofEnglish(late16 th and 17 th c.).

6estandardisationofEnglish,aswelasofmostEuropeanlanguages,maybedated

backtothetimewhenthe!rstgrammarsofthevernacularwerewriten,eitherinEnglish

orLatin,from theendofthe16 th centuryonward.Atthattim e,theauthorityoftheGreco

Latindescriptiveandprescriptiveframework,devisedandtransmitedfrom theClasical

Ages,wouldbegeneralyacknowledged,althoughsometimeschalenged,bythe!rst

grammariansoftheEnglishlanguage.

Whenconsideringthese!rstatemptsatdescribingandstandardisingEnglish,one

frequentlyencountersverydiversede!nitionsofsom eofthecentralconceptstoany

de!nitionofnormsandstandards:‘norms’,‘usage’,‘rules’,‘authority’,‘anomaly’,‘corectnes’,

etc.Attimes,usageispromoted,tothepointofpavingthewayfortheacceptanceofvarious

posiblestandards.Butitisrarelyclearastowho,infact,decideswhatisacceptable:

Reason,Nature,anyspeechcommunity,oralearnedminority?Consequently,onemight

enquirewhatisinfactunderstoodbytheconceptof‘custom’.Isitmerelya“barbarousand

gothic”practice(Lane1700),thesymptom ofagenerallackof“publicauthority”andan

altogether“unadvised”temptation(Cooper1687)?Canthegrammarian!ghtagainstitoris

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

ratherthanasa“foe”,the“companionofreason”(M ulcaster1582),endowedwith“theforce

ofNatureitself”(Lewis1670),evenacceptedas“amendingforce”(Johnson1640)?

Withrepeatedandregularreferencesto‘custom’duringthe!rstdecadesofthe

foundingofthegram m arofEnglish,itseem edrelevanttoca ryoutasurveyofthevarious

sem anticfeaturesasociatedwiththiscentralconceptinordertounderstandtheirrelation

totherepresentation ofusageatthattim e.

6ispaperwilatempttoprovideadetailedviewof‘custom’asde!nedandusedby

the!rstgram m ariansofEnglishinordertoreachabeterunderstandingofthelegacythese

worksprovidedtothedescriptive/prescriptivetradition.

References:

Auroux,Sylvain.1994.Larévolutiontechnologiquedelagrammatisation.Mardaga:Liège.

Jones,RichardFoster.1966.6 eTrium phoftheEnglishLanguage.Stanford:S.U.P.

LePrieult,Henri.2006.Grammaticalité:Traditionsetmodernités.Toulouse:P.U.M.

Michael,Ian.1970.EnglishGrammaticalCategoriesandtheTraditionto1800.Cambridge,

CambridgeUniversityPres.

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

KennikatPres.


KatjaLochtman,UniversitéLibredeBruxeles(Belgium )

Prescriptivism andsociolinguisticcompetencein

GermanasaForeignLanguageatUniversity

ToBelgianstudentswhostudyGermanlanguageandliteratureatuniversity,Germanisa

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

standardlanguageasthenorm .From anacadem icpointofview,adistinctioncanbem ade

betweenalinguisticandasociolinguisticnorm.W hilethelinguisticnorm referstothe

languagesystem in term sofgram m arrulesand thestandard lexicon,sociolinguisticsis

concernedwithlanguagebehaviorandlanguagevarietiesinformalandinformalsetings.

From thelaterperspectivelanguageerorsarede!nedintermsofinappropriatelanguage

behavior.6 equestionishow asociolinguisticnorm isdealtwithbyuniversitystudentsin

aGFL-context.Inordertoinvestigatethisquestion,31bachelorand14masterstudents

majoringinGermanfrom boththeUniversitéLibredeBruxelesandtheVrijeUniversiteit

Bruselwereaskedin2009towritedowntheirpointofviewinnaratives.Accordingto

Swainetal.(2011:Xi)"narativeinquiryandnarativeanalysishavevigorousrolesin

educationgeneraly.Storyingtheexperienceofteaching[.],andoflearninghasbecomean

acceptedmethodofresearch".6 estartingpointoftheirdiscu sionsisthecolumnon

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

languagecriticand stand-upcom edian Bastian Sick.6 eresultsindicatethatforeign

languagestudentsstilhavearatherprescriptiveview on gram m arand languagelearning.It

issuggestedthatlanguagee rorsarenolongersolelyunderstoodasafunction of

grammaticalaccuracybutalsofrom asociolinguisticpointofview asappropriatenes

(Lochtm an2012).

References:

Lochtman,K.(2012)SprachnormeninderAuslandsgermanistik.Mutersprache,3,194-202.

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

Bristol/Toronto.


SpirosA.Moschonas,UniversityofAthens(Gr ece)

Non-uniform standards:⇡ ecaseofStandardModernGreek

6eaim ofthispaperistoprovideacounterexampletoawidelyheldconceptionof

standardization as“theim position ofuniform ity”upon acertain linguisticvariety(M ilroy

2001:531).IexaminethestandardizationofModernGreekbyM anolisTriantaphylidis

(1883-1959),alinguistconsideredtobethe“foundingfather”ofStandardM odernGreek

(oP cialStandardsince1976).

6epresentationconcentratesonTriantaphylidis’ModernGrekGrammar(1941)

andshowsthetypesoflinguisticvarietydocumentedinit.AlthoughTriantaphylidis’aim

wasto“putanend”tothelastingGreekdiglosia,hisGrammarwasquitetoleranttowards

thehigh(archaistic)variantsoftheGreeklanguageanditalsorecordedagreatdealof

dialectalvariation.

Mypresentationalsolooksatthere-standardizationpracticesthathavebecome

prominenta?ertheoPcializationofTriantaphylidis’norm in1976;Iwilshow thatcu rent

“co rectivepractices”(M oschonas& Spitzm ü ler2009)haveadoptedaphraseologicaltrend,

whichdoesnotdistinguishbetweenhighandlowvariantsandisthusconsistentwithTriantaphylidis’non-uniform

standard.ItisalsointerestingthatTriantaphylidis’prescriptive

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

asumedthestatusofadescriptiveprincipleinalreferenceGrammarsofM odernGreek

publisheda?erTriantaphylidis’.

Iftim ealows,theGreekcasewilbecontrastedtothecasesofotherpluri-centric

Standards,suchasNorwegian,whichisasumedtobecu rentlyundergoingadestandardizationproces(Sandøy2012).

Iarguethattheconceptionofastandardasa“uniform variety”isanideological,pretheoreticalconstruct,andthusitcannotform

partofanyserioustheorizationofthe

standardizationproceses.Linguistsbelongtothesam earm yofauthoritieswith “founding

fathers”,folowers,advocatesandwritingpractitionersofalkinds(e.g.,editors,educators,

cra?profesionals);theirroleistopropagatethenormsofastandardthroughrationalizing

andspreadingtheilusionofuniformity.

References:

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

MoschonasS.A.andJ.Spitzmüler.2009.Prescriptivism inandaboutthemedia:Acomparative

analysisofco rectivepracticesinGreeceandGermany.In:S.JohnsonandT.M ilani(eds),

LanguageIdeologiesandMediaDiscourse:Texts,Practices,Politics,London:Continuum :17-

40.

SandøyH.2011.LanguagecultureinNorway:A traditionofquestioningstandardlanguage

norms.In:T.Kristiansen& N.Coupland(eds),StandardLanguagesandLanguage

StandardsinaChangingEurope,Oslo:Novus,119-126.

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

ofModernGreekStudies,1978 2 .


ArtoMustajoki,Departm entofM odern Languages,UniversityofHelsinki(Finland)

ChalengesinthestandardizationofcontemporaryRusian

6eRusianlanguagehasfacedtworadicalchangesduringthelasttwentyyears.Oneof

theseisthesam easinm anyotherm arket-basedsocieties:coloquialspeechandfeaturesof

entertainmenthavepenetratedpubliclanguageuse.6 isisespecialytrueofmediatexts,

bothoral(TV,radio)andwriten(newspapersandjournals).InRu siathisproceswas

muchfasterthaninothercountries,astherewasanimmediatechangefrom astrongly

regulatedpubliclanguageusetoaratherchaoticm edialandscape.6 ism eanta

democratizationofpubliclanguagepractices,whichhadpreviouslybeeninthehandsofa

sm alnumberofspeakersofliteraryRu sian.Suddenlyalm osteveryonecouldhavehisor

herownvoiceheardinpublicarenas.Havingthefreedom tospeakastheywantedto,

peopleactivelyintroducedcoloquialexpresionsandloanwordsfrom EnglishintooPcial

speech.6 isprovidedafruitfulgroundfordebateonthe“spoiling”oftheRu sianlanguage

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

thelanguagewastheadoptionofanew LanguageActin2005,whichfolowedtheFrench

traditionofpurism andgrantedtheauthoritiestherighttocon!rm thelinguisticnorm .It

wassurprisingthatthe!rstregulativeactionon1September2009wastoacceptsome

variantsofspelingandpronunciationwhichhadpreviouslybeeninpopularuse,butnonstandardaccordingtoauthoritativedictionaries.

AnothersubstantialchangedirectlycausedbythecolapseoftheSovietUnionwas

thedeclineofthestatusofRu sianintheform erSovietrepublics.Atthesam etim elarge

numbersofRu siansemigratedtoWesterncountries.6 enew situationraisedthequestion

oftheexistenceofvarietiesofRu sian.Accordingtothetraditionalview,thereisonlyone

standardvarietyoftheRu sianlanguage.However,itisobviousthattheRu sianusedin

oPcialdocumentsin,say,Kazakhstan,orasalinguafrancainDagestan,gradualydiverges

from “M oscow Ru sian”(cf.M ustajokiinpre s).Researchersargueoverthestatusofthese

diJerences:aretheymerelylocalcolouringsofthestandardlanguage,oraretheregrounds

forspeakingofdiJerentvarietiesofRu sian?

References:

Mustajoki,A.(2013).Raznovidnostiruskogoyazyka:analiziklasi!katsiya(VarietiesofRusian:

analysesandclasi!cation).Voprosyyazykoznaniya(submited).

Vanhala-Aniszewski,M.(2010).Unityordiversity?6 elanguageideologydebateinRusianmedia

texts.InLanguageideologiesintransitionmultilingualism inRusiaandFinland,ed byM .

Lahteenmaki& M.Vanhala-Aniszewski.Frankfurtam Mainetc.:PeterLang,101-121.

Wingender,M.,Barkijevir,I&D.Müler.(2010)KorpuslingvistischeUntersuchungenvon

Standardsprachenmarkmalen.EinBeitragzurvergleichendenStandardologie.Zeitschri⇡für

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


KazuhikoNakae,KansaiGaidaiUniversity,Osaka(Japan)

From Prescriptivism toPurism inMultiglo sicArabic

From thehistoricalperspectiveofArabiclanguageitsgrammarwascodi!edandfrozento

!xinthe!rstandsecondcenturyofIslamicera(from theendofseventhcenturytoeighth

centuryCE).6 islanguagehasbeencaledClasicalArabicinthewesternscholarly

tradition.Andthisisthebeginningofstandardizationproce sinArabic.From thiseraon

standardizationprocesm eanstom aintainthecodi!edgram m arasaprescriptiveand

prestigiousnorm andtoendeavourtoavoidcoloquialin2uences,becauseanycoloquial

2avouredArabicisasumedtobevulgarandstigmatized.

6eArabicgrammarwhichwasprescribedbyS[bawayhi(d.793)inal-kit\bisthe

mostimportantcoregrammarthatcannotbeavoidedfortheresearchofArabiclanguage.

AndthisgrammarhasbeenpreciouslypreservedinIslamictraditionbecauseal-Qurʾ\n

waswriteninthisprescriptiveArabic.ActualythisprescriptiveArabicmightbeoneof

varietiesintheClasicalperiod.HoweverthegrammarprescribedbyS[bawayhihas

continuedtobethefrozennorm peoplestickto.Althoughitisnobody’smothertongue,it

hasbeensopervasivetotheextentthatordinarynativespeakersrecognizeonlythis

prescriptiveArabicaspureandauthentic.6 at’swhytheycalthisArabicfuṣḥ\(pure).

6isisthewayprescriptivism andpurism hasdisturbedthepreciselinguistic

descriptionandanalysisofArabicandthepreciseunderstandingoftheactualdynamic

situationofArabic,whichasaresult‘israrelyembeddedinacadem iccu ricula’(DenHeijer

2012)intheArabiceducation.Linguistsmaytendtoresorttoprescriptivism inlanguage

description.Mitchel(1975)warnsaboutthistendency,mentioning‘anunconfesed

purism’.Weshouldnotsticktothiskindofnormativebindandpuristicview inlinguistic

description;otherwisewemayoverlookthedynamicinteractionofvariousvarietiesand

stylesactualyusedinthespeechcom munity.Iwilshow som e2oatingconstructions

triggeredbyspeakers’prescriptiveandpuristica sum ptioninArabicandthensearchfor

linguisticproblem sin generalcaused byprescriptivism .

Iam workinginthefram ework‘m ultiglo sia’suggestedbyHary(1992)overthe

clasicalframeworkFerguson(1959)depictedas‘diglo sia’.6 ismulti-lectinteractionon

thecontinuum betweenthetwoextrem esisanim portantviewpointfortheanalysisto

comprehendtheactualdynamicsituationofArabic.Ithinkthatthismultiglo sic

fram eworkholdstruealsoinsom eotherlanguages.Iwilsearchforsom etendencieswhich

prescriptivism maybringaboutinmultiglosicsetingsingeneral.

References:

DenHeijer,Johannes.2012.“Introduction:MiddleandMixedArabic,NewTrendinArabic

Studies.”InLiesbethZackandArieSchippers(eds.)MiddleArabicandMixedArabic,

DiacronyandSynchrony.Leiden,Boston :Bril,1-25.

Ferguson,C.A.1959.“Diglosia.”Word15,325-40.

Hary,Benjamins.1992.MultiglosiainJudeo-Arabic.WithanEdition,Translationand

GrammaticalStudyoftheCairenePurim Schrol.Leiden,New York,and Köln :E.J.Bril.

Mitchel,T.F.1975.“SomePreliminaryObservationsontheArabicKoine.”BuletinofBritish

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


MirenLourdesOñedera,Academ yoftheBasqueLanguage/UniversityoftheBasqueCountry,Bilbao/

Vitoria-Gasteiz(Spain)

Basquepronunciation:dialectalrichnesvs.strength

oftheStandardinaminoritylanguage

6estandardisationofwritenBasquewasinitiatedinthelate60’s.6e!rststepstowards

thestandardisationofitspronunciationweretakenbytheAcadem yoftheBasqueLanguage

(m ainprescriptivistoP cialauthority,widelyrecognizedbyspeakersofbothFrenchand

Spanishareas)thirtyyearslater.6 enormsfortheFormalPronunciationofStandard

Basque(EBAZ),m ainlyrequiredbyandaddresedtothem ediaprofesionals,were

publishedattheendof1998.

6emainproblem thatpromptedthosenormsstilremains,asspeakerstendto

devoidStandardBasqueofphonologicalcharacteristicsthattheyidentifywithdialectal

varieties.6 eresultofthatidenti!cationis,moreo?enthannot,theadoptionofSpanishor

FrenchphonologicalcharacteristicsforthepronunciationofStandardBasque.Speakers

wholearnBasqueasL2tendtoshowthisbehaviour.Ontheotherhand,speakerswho,due

totheirsociologicaland/ordialectalbackground,feeltoodistantfrom theStandardvariety,

tendtorejectitaltogethereven in situationsthatwouldnorm alyrequireaform alregister.

6echalengeforthelinguistisnowto!ndawaytomakeStandardBasque

compatiblewiththedialects.Itwilbearguedthat,forthattobefeasible,(a)oralStandard

cannotbeasuni!edasthewritenone,and(b)themaindialectalcharacteristicstobe

incorporatedontothoseoralstandardsm ustbeverycarefu lychosen,sothattheinevitable

dialectal“los”isacceptabletothespeakers.Forthatendeavourtobesuccesful,thepaper

wilalsoproposethatagreatdidacticeJortshouldbemadeintheteachingofhowdiJerent

sociophonologicalandphonostylisticlevelsshouldgotogetherwithdiJerentdegreesof

dialectpresence.Speci!cexamplesofsociologicalandlingustic(phonological)isueswil

begiven.

Wethinkthatmuchofthevariationthatcoulddevelopfreelyinalanguage,mustbe

consciouslywatchedinaminority-language,andmoresoinalanguagelikeBasque,spoken

in twodiJerentbilingualsetings(theFrench BasqueareaandtheSpanish Basquearea).As

linguists,however,wem ustacknowledgethatthisperspectiveisnotan easyone,and that

wemustbeextremelycarefulnottryingtocontroltootightwhatmustbethespontaneous

evolutionofthelanguage.

Itistheaim ofthispresentation todiscu sourcasewithcoleaguesfrom diJerentbut

comparablelinguisticsetings.


NadiaPetrova,Leiden University( eNetherlands)

A Comparative Analysis of Russian and English Usage Guides

from the Twentieth and the Twenty-First Centuries

6epurposeofthisstudywastocaryoutacomparativeanalysisofRusianandEnglishusage

guidesofthetwentiethandthetwenty-!rstcenturiesinthecontextofprescriptivism and

descriptivism.6 eresearchquestionofthepaperwaswhichusageguidesaremoreprescriptive

ordescriptivetheRu sianortheEnglishones.ToanalysethisfourRu sianandfourEnglish

bookswereselected.6 eRu sianusageguidesare:

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

2) ModernRusianUsagebyD.È.Rozental’(1959[1963]);

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

4) “SpeakandW riteRu sianCo rectly”byD.È.Rozental’(2009).

6eEnglishusageguidesare:

1) eKing’sEnglishbyF.FowlerandH.Fowler(1906);

2) ADictionaryofModernEnglishUsagebyH.Fowler(1926);

3) UsageandAbusage:AGuidetoGoodEnglishbyE.Partridge(1947);

4) eNewFowler’sModernEnglishusagebyR.Burch!eld(1996).

InordertooJerafocusedanalysis,threeusageproblem sweresingledout:

1) theagreem entbetweenthesubjectandthepredicatewithcolectivenouns(a/them ajority

is/are,a/thenumberis/are);

2) thegerundivalconstruction(Ru sian)/thedanglingparticiple(English)(“Roughly

speaking,alm enareliars”Fowlers1906:119);

3) thedegreesofcom parisonoftheadjective(moreequal,in thebrutalestm anner).

Twoapproacheswerefolowedinordertoestimatethedegreeofprescriptivism and

descriptivism intheusageguides.6 e!rstoneisatraditionalapproachwhichtakesinto

accountexplicitevaluativemetalanguageappliedbytheauthors.A secondapproachconsistsin

singlingoutdeonticandepistem icm odalsusedintheentries.

6eresultsoftheinvestigationshowedthattheEnglishauthorsaremorethantwiceas

prescriptiveastheirRu siancounterparts.

References:

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

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPres.

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

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

workpublished1914).

Fowler,HenryW.2009.ADictionaryofModernEnglishUsage.[1 st ed.1926repr.with intr.byD.

Crystal]Oxford:OxfordUniversityPres.

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

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

RosijskajaGazeta.

Partridge,Eric1947.UsageandAbusage:AGuidetoGoodEnglish.London:H am ish H am ilton.

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

NewYork,Paris:PergamonPres.(Originalworkpublished1959).

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

Moscow:AjrisPres.


KanavililRajagopalan,StateUniversityatCam pinas(Brazil)

⇡edescriptivelinguist’sdilemmaswhenconfronted

withthechalengeoflanguageplanning

Languagepolicyandlanguageplanninginevitablyinvolveadeliberateinterventionintothe

aJairs– orforthatmater,eventhedestiny–ofalanguageoragroupoflanguages.Itis

prescriptiveparexcelence.Ithasm oretodowith politicsthan linguistics,conceived ofasa

scienti!centerpriseaim edatcom ingtogripswithaprogresivelym oreaccurateunderstandingoflanguage.Itispreciselyherethatthetwo–

linguisticsandlanguageplanning–

diverge.For,inupholdingandpursuingitsclaimsofmuch-cherishedscienti!cobjectivity

andvalue-neutrality,linguisticspridesitselfonitsbeingapurelydescriptiveenterprise,

setingasidealtemptationtorecom m end,prescribe,how languageshouldbeusedand

insteadpreferstofocuson how itisactualyused.6 isisjustwhatlanguageplannersand

policymakerscannotaJordtodo,onpainofstrayingawayfrom theirobjectives.

Inm ypresentation,however,Ishalclaim thatevendescriptivelyorientedlinguists

havealalongbeen,o?enunbeknownsttothemselves,covertlyengagedinpromoting

speci!cagendas.Itisalsothecasethatm anylinguistshavefrequentlyweighedinonpolicyrelatedm

atersandlanguagedebateswhilefailingtoappreciatethatthesediscu sionshave

tobeconductedin wayswheretherulesofengagem entareafarcryfrom thoseobservedin

scienti!ccontroversies.Ishalhoneinonthecelebrated‘Ebonicscontroversy’intheUSto

ilustratem ypoint.

Whatrealymatersinpublicdebatesoverlanguageisuesishowthepersoninthe

streetviewstheirlanguageandwhatitsymbolizestothem .Anyoneinterestedinm aking

senseofsuchhead-onconfrontationsinvolving,ontheonehand,decisionstakenatthe

highestrungsofadministrativeauthorityand,ontheother,publicopinionatlargemustset

asidewhatyearsofwisdom accumulatedbytheadvanceoftheoreticallinguisticshave

taughtusandinsteadtrytounderstandtheworkingsof‘folklinguistics’.InBrazil,afam ous

controversybrokeoutmorethanadecadeagoonthestateofPortuguese,thecountry’s

nationallanguageandthemother-tongueofthevastmajorityofitspeople.6 ecountry’s

linguistsalsojoined thefraysom ewherealongtheline.Buttheiratem ptstointervenein

thedebateactualyproducedm oreheatthanlight.(Rajagopalan,2002,2005a,b,2008).6 e

im plicationsaswelasthefaloutfrom thisepisodewilbethecentralconcern ofm y

presentation.

References:

Rajagopalan,K.(2002).Nationallanguagesas2agsofalegiance;orthelinguisticsthatfailedus:a

closelookatemergentlinguisticchauvinism inBrazil.Language& Politics.1(1),115-147.

Rajagopalan,K.(2005a).6 elanguageisueinBrazil:whenlocalknowledgeclasheswith

specializedknowledge.In:SureshCanagarajah(ed.).ReclaimingtheLocalinLanguage

PolicyandPractice.M ahwah,N J:LawrenceErlbaum Publishers.pp.99-122.

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

Rajagopalan,K.(2008).6 eroleofgeopoliticsinlanguageplanningandlanguagepoliticsinBrazil.

CurentIsuesinLanguagePlanning9.2.pp.179-19.


HannaRutkowska,Adam M ickiewiczUniversity,Poznan (Poland)

Etymologicalspelinginthirteeneditionsof-eKalenderofShepherdes

6ispapersummarisesthe!ndingsofacorpus-based,qualitativeandquantitativecomparativestudywhichtracestheprocesofintroducingetym

ologicalspelinginthirteen

editionsof eKalenderofShepherdes,acom prehensivecom pendium ofproseand verse

texts,publishedbetween 1506and1656.6 ecorpuscontainsover0.9m ilion words,and

constitutesadatabaseoftranscriptionspreparedbythepresentauthor,andbasedonthe

facsim ilesavailableatEarlyEnglishBooksOnline.6 eanalysed editionsincludeSTC 22408,

STC 22410,STC 22411,STC 22412,STC 22415,STC 22416,STC 22416.5,STC 22419,STC

22420,STC 22421;STC 22422,STC 22423,andWingB713.

Etymologicalspelingisconsideredoneofthemostimportantvariablestobetaken

intoconsideration in theanalysisoforthographicregularisation andstandardisation in

EarlyModernEnglish(Salmon1999).AccordingtoBrengelman(1980:351)“the

LatinizationofEnglishwasaprojectoftheseventeenthcentury”.Hebasedhisopinionon

Mulcaster’s(1582)usage.However,my!ndingsprovethatMulcaster’sreluctanceto

etymologicalspelingdoesnotre2ecteithertheopinionsofothercontemporaryspeling

reform ers,orthoepistsandlexicographers,ortheusagerecordedintherelevantKSeditions.

Infact,m ostcla sicisingspelingchangesinEnglishseem tohavebeencom pletebythe

beginningoftheseventeenthcentury.

6eprinters’practicerecordedinthecorpushasbeenconfrontedwiththe

recom m endationsofseveralsixteenth-andseventeenth-centurylexicographersand

spelingreform ers.6 isconfrontationhasrevealedthattheviewsofthesescholarscould

nothavetriggeredtheadoptionofetymologicalspelingamongtheprinters,becausethis

trendhadstartedbeforetheirwritingswerepublished.However,theirpublicationscould

havesupportedthealreadyadvancedprocesofspelingmodi!cationandregularisation.

6epresentstudymakespartofapost-doctoralprojectanalysingtheorthographic

system sofearlyprintersofbookspublishedinEnglish.IthasbeenfundedbythePolish

MinistryofScienceandHigherEducation(projectno.NN104055438).

References:

Brengelman,F.(1980),“Orthoepists,printersandtherationalisationofEnglishspeling”,Journalof

EnglishandGermanicPhilology79:332–54.

Mulcaster,R.(1582) e⇠rstpartoftheelementarievvhichentreatethchefelieoftherightwritingof

ourEnglishtung,Vautrou lier,London.

Salmon,V.(1999)“Orthographyandpunctuation”,in eCambridgeHistoryoftheEnglish

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

55.

TextCreationPartnership,EarlyEnglishBooksOnline,lastaccesed25May2012at

.


GijsbertRutenandRikVosters,UniversiteitLeiden ( eNetherlands)andVrijeUniversiteitBru sel

(Belgium)

NegationandprescriptioninthehistoryofDutch

6ehistoryofclausenegationinDutchiso?enconsideredaclasicexampleofJespersen’s

cycle:from OldDutchpreverbalsinglenegation(ne)toM iddleDutchbipartitenegation

(en .niet)and!nalyM odernDutchpostverbalsinglenegation(niet).Bipartitenegationis

saidtohavedisappearedoverthecourseoftheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,when

thestandardlanguagecultureintheprovinceofHolandreacheditspeak(VanderHorst&

VanderWal1979,Buridge1993).W hilethisviewdescribesthelinguisticsituationinthe

NorthernNetherlandsfairlywel(Rutenetal.2012),bothlanguagenormsandusageinthe

SouthernNetherlandswerequitediJerent(Vosters& Vandenbu sche2012).Inthispaper,

wediscusthenormativetraditionintheSouthernNetherlandsintheeighteenthand

nineteenthcenturies,discusdiJerencesandresemblanceswithNorthernprescriptions,

andzoom inonlanguageuseintheSouthinthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenth

centuries.

WewilshowthatSoutherngrammariansstilfrequentlyuseandprescribebipartite

negationuntilthe1750s.A?erthat,theisuemovesoJthelinguisticradar,thusbridging

thenorm ativedividebetweenNorthandSouth.Inlanguageuse,however,bipartite

negationlivedon,aswewilshow throughananalysisofeighteenthandnineteenthcenturysoldiers’co

respondence(VanBakel1977),andofearly-nineteenth-centurycrime

reports,witnesdepositionsandcourtroom indictm ents(Vosters2011).

Ouranalysisbringstogetherthe!nalstageofJespersen’scycleinactuallanguageuse,

andmetalinguisticcommentstriggeredbythevariationoftheoldandthenew typeof

negation.6 iscombinedperspectivealowsustoevaluatetheeJectivenesofprescriptions

onlanguageuse.

References:

VanBakel,J.(1977).VlaamsesoldatenbrievenuitdeNapoleontischetijd.Bruges:O rion.

Buridge,K.(1993).SyntacticChangeinGermanic.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

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

6-37.

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

eighteenth-centuryDutch.A historical-sociolinguisticperspective”.Neuphilologische

Miteilungen:323-342.

Vosters,R.(2011).Taalgebruik,taalnormenentaalbeschouwinginVlaanderentijdenshetVerenigd

KoninkrijkderNederlanden.Eenhistorisch-sociolinguïstischeverkenningvanvroegnegentiende-

euwsZuidelijkNederlands.PhD disertation.Brusel:VrijeUniversiteit

Brusel.

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

Dutch.Sociolinguisticaspectsofnormsandvariation”.NeuphilologischeMiteilungen113:

343-364.


DickSmakman,LUCL,Leiden University( eNetherlands)

InternationaldeBnitionsofthestandardlanguage

6ede!nitionofthestandardlanguageseemsmoreelusivethanthatofthedialect.

Dictionaryde!nitionsof“standard(language)”arelimitedwhilelinguistsapplywildly

diJerentapproacheswhendescribingthislanguagevariety.Layviewsseem highlyrelevant

in thisde!nition,butthesein particularhavenotbeen researchedenough.To!nd

agreementonthelayde!nitionof“standard”,aninternationalsurveywasperformedin

which1,014non-linguistsfrom sevencountries(England,Flanders,Japan,theNetherlands,

NewZealand,Poland,andtheUnitedStates)wereaskedtode!nethestandardlanguagein

theirowncountry.

6eonlyqualitythataroseacrosparticipantsfrom alcountrieswas“lingua

francane s”.Andwhilenewsreaderswerewidelya sociatedwithstandardspeech,this

asociationhasturnedoutnottobeuniversal.6 estrongasociationofstandardlanguages

withaspeci!ccityorregionmayalsobeleswidespreadthaniso?enasumed.6 e

commonasociationofstandardlanguageswithnon-regionalitymayonlybetrueforold

standardlanguages.

Twoparalelstandardlanguagesappear:thesocialydistinctiveone(the“exclusive”

standardlanguage)andthesocialycohesiveone(the“inclusive”standardlanguage).Som e

countriesonlyhavethelater.6 esetwoviewsofthestandardlanguagearearguedtobe

complementaryratherthanmutualyexclusive.

References:

DickSmakman(2012).6 ede!nitionofthestandardlanguage.Asurveyinsevencountries.

InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,218,25-58.


MathijsSmits,UniversityofLeiden,( eNetherlands)

‘G arnering’Respect?:⇡ eEm ergenceofAuthorityin theAm erican UsageTradition

Prescriptivism anddescriptivism havebeenattheheartofEnglishlanguagediscusionsfor

atleastthepast300years–withfar-reachingconsequencesforthewayinwhichthe

languagehasbeen recorded,taught,and spread throughouttheworld.6 epast100

hundredyearsorso,inparticular,havebroughtthesediscu sionsclosertothepublic

domain,coupledwithtechnologicalimprovementsthathavefacilitatedlinguisticresearch

anddebateconsiderably.However,despiteimprovementsinthequalityandquantityof

linguisticinform ation available,debatesaboutlanguagebecom efractiousand redundant

becauseofthe(supposed)ideologicalincompatibilitybetweenprescriptivism and

descriptivism (Baron1982,Finegan2001,Drake1977).

6ispaperdealswiththehistoricaldevelopmentofthenormativelanguagedebatein

theUnitedStates,withaparticularem phasisontheAm ericanusageguidewriterBryan

Garner.ItdiscusesindetailGarner’squali!cations,aswelastheevolutionofGarner’s

wel-knownusageguide,Garner’sModernAmericanUsage.

6e!rstpartofthepaperdealswiththedescriptive-prescriptivedebatewhichhas

permeatedmanyofthediscu sionsonnormativelinguistics.6 esechaptersdealwiththe

mostimportantcontributionsbyBritishandAmericangrammariansanddevelopmentsin

theAm ericanlinguisticlandscape,includingthefoundationofalanguageacadem y,the

writingsofLindleyMurayandRichardGrantWhite,thedevelopmentof(usage)

dictionaries,usagesurveysanddescriptivelinguistics,andtheimportanceofH.W.Fowler

in theusageguidegenre.

6esecondpartofthepaperisacasestudyofBryanGarner’scontributionstoand

positionwithintheusageguidegenre.Todoso,Icomparethestructureofhisusageguide

tothatofprevioususageguidewritersandascertain hisquali!cationsandm otivation for

writing.InthispartIalsoundertakeasmalsurveyofcommonusageitemsanddetermine

bywhatmethodsGarnerarivesathisjudgments.IemploytheCorpusofContemporary

AmericanEnglish(COCA)andCorpusofHistoricalAmericanEnglish(COHA)inorderto

asesthevalidityandtrustworthinesofthesejudgments.

References:

Baron,DennisE.(1982).GrammarandGoodTaste:ReformingtheAmericanLanguage.New

Haven:YaleUP.

Finegan,Edward(2001).“Usage.”In:JohnAlgeo(ed.),TheCambridgeHistoryoftheEnglish

LanguageVol.6.Cam bridge:Cam bridgeUniversityPre s.358-421.

Drake,GlendonF.(1977). eRoleofPrescriptivism inAmericanLinguistics,1820-1970.

Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.


RobinStraaijer,UniversityofLeiden ( eNetherlands)

PerspectivesonPrescriptivism:⇡ ereceptionofEnglishusageguides

Despitethefactthatthecodi!cationoftheEnglishlanguagetookplacetwoovercenturies

ago,theneedforprescriptionhasnotabated;rather,theoppositeistrue.IntheAnglo-

Americantradition,usageguidesareposiblythemainsourceofprescriptionfornative

speakers,andpublicdebatesonusageandprescriptivism seem o?entakeplaceinthe

media.

6equestionIwishtoaddresis:Howdoculturalandpoliticalideologiesdrivethe

continuedneedforprescription?Tostarttoanswerthis,Iwanttoinvestigatethereception

of20th-and21st-centuryEnglishusageguidesasaninstanceofacontemporarydiscourse

onprescriptivism.Iwilcomparethelanguageusedinreviewsofusageguidesinthe

popularpreswiththoseinacademicjournalstoseehow laypersonsandlinguistsdiscu s

prescriptivisteJorts.6 epremiseisthatdiscursivediJerencespointtowardsideological

viewsofprescriptionandstandardisation.

Myapproachtothistopicisacorpus-drivencomparativediscourseanalysis(Coter

2003).Ihavecompiledacorpusofreviewsofusageguidesthathaveappearedinthe

popularandtheacademicpreses.Iwilusethenewspapers& periodicals-sectionofthe

BNC-BabyasareferencecorpusinordertodoakeywordanalysisusingWordSmithTools.

Iwilidentifytextualkeywordsanddiscu stheirfunctioninthediscourses(Baker2004)

withreferencetotheirculturalsigni!cance(Wiliams1985).

Mypresentationaimstomakelinguistsmoreawareofandresponsivetotheneedfor

prescriptionthatexistswiththegeneralpublic.Inthissense,thestudyisnotmerelya

descriptivebutacriticaldiscourseanalysisandthereforenormative:Iwishtoaddresandif

posiblecorectasocialproblem initsdiscursivecontext(Fairclough2010).

References:

Baker,Paul.2004.QueryingKeywords:QuestionsofDiJerence,Frequency,andSensein

KeywordsAnalysis.JournalofEnglishLinguistics32,346-359.

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

HandbookofDiscourseAnalysis,416-436.Oxford:Blackwel.

Fairclough,Norman.2010.CriticalDiscourseAnalysis:thecriticalstudyoflanguage.2 nd ed.Harlow:

PearsonEducation.

Wiliams,Raymond.1985.Keywords:AVocabularyofCulture& Society.2 nd edn.New York:

Oxford.


DaceStrel0vica-O1i2a,Latvian LanguageInstitute,UniversityofLatvia,Riga(Latvia)

Human-orientedprescriptivism,language-orientedprescriptivism,

error-orientedprescriptivism :som ecro s-culturaldiEerences

6ethreetypesofprescriptivism listedinthetitleoJeratheoreticalframeworkatempting

toaccountforthediJerent,o?en contrastingm anifestationsofprescriptivism andpurism

andthepublicreactionstothem indiJerentcultures.

Whyisitsothatintheanglophonesociety(asobservedbyDeborahCameronand

otherauthors)thelinguistsareo?enheldresponsibleforasupposeddeclineoflanguage

becausetheyhavealegedly“proclaimedtotheworldthatLanguageDoesNotMaterand

maythereforebeusedwithimpunity”(D.Cameron1995,p.x),whiletheLatviansociety

som etim esblam esthelinguistsforalegedlywantingtocontrolthelanguageandtoputitin

astraightjacket?.Nomaterhow exaggeratedthesepublicstereotypesaretoday,theyare

ratherilustrativeofthewaytherespectivesocietieshavefeltaboutthelinguistictheoryand

practicetraditionalyoJeredtothem througheducationandothermedia.W hydidthe

English-speakinglinguisticliteraturesopainstakinglycriticizeprescriptivism fornumerous

decadesduringthe20 th century,whilein theLatvian culture,theterm ‘prescriptivism’itself

didnotrealycomeintouseuntilthelate1990s(althoughthephenomenonitselfhaslong

beenpresent)?Andwhy,a?eral,Britishprescriptivism inthepastwasmostlyconcerned

withclas-relatedlinguisticdiJerences,butLatvianprescriptivism –within2uencesfrom

otherlanguages?

Eventhoughprescriptivism andtheconcernaboutlanguagecorectnesis,undoubtedly,afairlyuniversalphenom

enon,itisthecultural,social,political,etc.diJerencesthat

seem tom aterm ostwhenwetrytoprobeitsdepths.Astheresultofseveralyears’ex-

perience(bothpracticalandacademic),IhaverecentlyoJeredandpublicisedtheclasi-

!cationofthesaidthreetypes–human-oriented,language-oriented,anderor-oriented

prescriptivism.6 e!rstterm maybeappliedtothetraditionalBritish(aswelas,e.g.,

AncientRoman)prescriptivism wherethegrammaticalfeaturesofthelanguageusedbya

personwouldsignalabouttheirsocial“corectnes”.6 esecondtype,language-oriented

prescriptivism,describesthesituationofLatvia(andothersimilarcommunities,e.g.the

Quebecois)whereanationhaslonghadtostriveforitsindependence,andmanifestsits

patriotism byprotectingitslanguagefrom foreignin2uences(andwhere,mostimportantly,

thexenophobicpurism seem stom olifyandcivilizetheinterethniccontroversies,rather

thantoignitethem ).6 ethirdtype,e ror-orientedprescriptivism ,isaratheruniversal

manifestationofprescriptivism whichcancoexistwitheitherofthe!rsttwotypes(thus,

everycultureseemstohaveits“favourite”languageerors,realorimagined,thatgetmost

publicatentionthroughoutages).

References:

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


MasimoSturiale,UniversityofCatania(Italy)

PedagogicalPrescriptivism inEarly20th-centuryCorrespondenceLanguageCourses

ACaseStudy:IlPoliglotaM oderno(1905-1907)

YourEnglish letermightbebeterwriten,

butisnotbad.Weshalseeabouttheweekly

paper.[Leterto A.B.–Milan.IlPoliglota

Moderno(1907,isuen.138,p.426)]

IlPoliglotaM odernowasaweeklym agazine(“giornalesetim anale”)dedicated tothe

teachingandlearningoftheEnglish language,publishedin M ilan from 14 th M ay1905until

29 th D ecem ber1907.Itwasedited and directed byErnestoD aNova.In typical18 th -century

stylethesubtitlehas“perimpararesenzam aestrolalinguainglese”orinW iliam Pery’s

words“withouttheaidofamaster”(Pery1795:titlepage).AspointedoutbyMaroger

(2001:223),inherstudydedicatedtotheFrenchversionofthem agazine,“them ethodis

traditionalconcerningtheexercisesandtheglobalapproachtothelanguage,butitintroducesinnovationsincommunicationwithitsusersthroughmailcorespondence”.

6enewsystem devised,de!nedas“facileepiano”oreasyandplain,wasbasedon

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

few words,veryfew rulesandalotofpractice.Eachle son containssectionson gram m ar

(withexplanation,exam plesandpractice),translation(from andintoEnglish),readingexercisesandexamplesof‘realconversations’,pronunciationtipsandco

respondencewhere

readers’(i.e.students’)feedbacksarecom m entedonandfurtherinstructionsgiven.However,thecourseisperfectlyinlinewith19

th -centurygram m ar-translationcoursebooks

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

eyalsosuggestthat“the

highpriorityatachedtometiculousstandardsofaccuracy[.]wasaprerequisiteforpasingtheincreasingnum

berofform alwriten exam inationsthatgrew upduringthecentury”

(Howat& W iddowson2004:152)inEuropeandtheUSA,aswel(seeBatistela2009).

Inthispaper,Ishaldiscu stheprescriptivistvalue(s)ofIlPoiliglotaasan exam ple

ofearly20 th -centuryItalianco respondenceeducationcoursesfortheteachingoftheEnglish

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

evaluationofthemetalanguageusedbytheinstructor.

References:

Batistela,E.L.,2009,DoyouMake eseMistakesinEnglish? eStoryofSherwinCody’sFamous

LanguageSchool.Oxford/New York:Oxford UniversityPre s.

DaNova,E.1905-1907,IlPoliglotaM oderno.Giornalesetimanaleperimparare‘senzamaestro’la

linguainglese.Secondoilm etodoDaNova.M ilano:Sonzogno.

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

OxfordUniversityPres.

Maroger,N.,2001,“LePoliglotaModernoou un nouvelartd’entendrel’autodidaxieau débutdu

XXesiècle”,QuadernidelDipartimentodiLinguistica,UniversitàdiFirenze,11,pp.201-225.

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


GiedriusTama1evi4ius,InstitutefortheLithuanian Language,Vilnius(Lithuania)

⇡eideologicalcontextsoflanguagestandardizationinthemedia

6ispaperlooksintothedevelopmentofLithuanianstandardlanguageideologyintended

forthebroadcastm ediafrom thelaunchofthepublicradioservicein 1926tothepresent

tim e.6 reeperiodscanbedistinguishedinthisdevelopm ent:1)buildingoftheindependentLithuanianstateinthe1920sand1930s;2)Sovietizationofthemasmediaduringthe

Sovietoccupation(1940–41and1944–1990);3)cu rentperioda?erthere-establishmentof

Lithuania’sindependence(since1990).

6eresearchencompasesthree!eldsofenquiryshapedbytheSLideologyinthe

procesofstandardization:

1. Legislativebasis(lawsandrulesthatprescribetheuseoflanguageinthemedia;

directivesforlanguagecontroletc.)

2. Controlapparatus(reportsfrom theStateLanguageInspectorateandother

controlinginstitutions)

3. Publicdiscourseontheroleofmedialanguage(articles,interviewsandother

materialspublishedinlinguisticjournalsandpresbythelinguists,journalistsand

laypeople)

6eaim ofthestudyistofolowtheformationandimplementationoftheSLideologyin

thebroadcastm ediabyexam ininghow itwasin2uencedbysocialtransform ationsand

changes.

6eresultsofthestudyhaverevealedthatprescriptiverequirementsforthelanguage

ofthebroadcastmediahavenotchangedmuchsincethelaunchoftheradioservicein

Lithuania.Manifestationsofnon-standardformshavealwaysreceivedverystrictcriticism:

useofthelanguagethatdidnotcomplywiththeidealstandardwasconsidered

reprehensibleandintolerable.Folowingthistradition,recenttransform ationsinthesociety

andchangesinthebroadcastmediaarenow seenasathreattothestandardlanguageand,

consequently,asareasontofurthertightentherequirements.

References:

CouplandN.,KristiansenT.2011.SLICE:Criticalperspectivesonlanguage(de)standardization.

StandardLanguagesandLanguageStandardsinaChangingEurope.Kristiansen T.,Coupland

N.(eds.).Oslo:NovusPre s,11–35.

HelerM.2010.Media,thestateandlinguisticauthority.LanguageIdeologiesandMediaDiscourse.

Texts,Practices,Politics.Ed.byS.Johnson and T.M .M ilaniLondon:Continuum

InternationalPublishingGroup,277–282.

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


LoretaVaicekauskiene,InstitutefortheLithuanian Language,Vilnius(Lithuania)

Joiningscholarshipandstatestandardizationideology:

prescriptionasSovietinheritanceinpost-sovietLithuania

6epresentationdiscusesthepresumableimpactofSovietlanguagestandardization

policiesonlanguageregulationpracticesinthere-establishedLithuania.Researchof

archivedocumentsandpublicationsonstandardizationisuesfrom theSovietperiodshows

thattheSovietauthoritiesdevelopedanideathatalpubliclanguagehastobecontroledby

theStateinterm sofco rectne s.6 enorm codi!cationcriteriaestablishedbythePrague

schoolwerereadaptedgradualychangingtheircontentandthelogicofscholarship.6 e

diJerencebetweenscholarsandtheideologistsgradualydiminished.

Ipresentanoverview ofprescriptivelegislationsandlanguagecontrolinstitutionsin

presentLithuaniaandcompareitwiththe!ndingsfrom thehistoricalresearch.Particular

atentionisgiventothePraguecodi!cationcriterion‘appropriatenes’.Iarguethatthe

natureandscopeofregulationsoflanguagevariationanddevelopmenttogetherwiththe

involvem entofthescholarshipin theideologicallanguagepreservation workin thepostmodernLithuaniacanbebestexplainedbytheinheritancefrom

Sovietperiod.

Severalotherfactorsthatcouldhavein2uencedLithuanianprescriptivism arealso

discu sed(suchasthelatestandardization,marginalizationoflanguage,romantic

nacionalisticbeliefsetc.,knownfrom theother(smalethnolinguistic)speech

communities)andthespeci!csofLithuaniansituationarehighlighted.

References:

Bermel,Neil.2007.LinguisticAuthority,LanguageIdeology,andMetaphor: eCzechOrthography

Wars.M outon deGruyter:Berlin,New York.

Liebich,Olga.2006.ZurEntwicklungderAueasungvonderSprachnorm undderKodi⇠zierungin

dersowjetischenundrusischenSprachwisenscha⇡.

webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/dis/2007/liebich/liebich.pdf

Milroy,James.2001.Languageideologiesandtheconsequencesofstandardization.Journalof

Sociolinguistics5/4:530-555.

Spitzmüler,Jürgen.2007.Stakingtheclaimsofidentity:purism,linguisticsandthemediainpost-

1990Germany.JournalofSociolinguistics11(2):261-285.

6omasG.1996.6ePragueschooltheoryoflanguagecultivationorpurism bythebackdoor.

Canadianslavonicpapers38,195-204

|epetys,Nerijus.2012.“Languagecanberegulated”–Sovietauthorities,linguistsandthe

standardizationoftheLithuanianlanguage.Lituanus:58(2).

Vaicekauskien},Loreta.2011.‘GoodLanguage’andInsecureSpeakers.FoliaLinguistica.M outon

deGruyter,76-103.


HeimirFreyrVi5arson,UniversityofIceland,Reykjavik(Iceland)

⇡eriseofstandardIcelandicsyntaxinthe19 th century:rewritinghistory

AnemergingstandardvarietyofIcelandicwasamajorfocusofatentioninthe19 th century,

althoughitcountedbynomeansasa!rstatempt.W ritennormshadformedalreadyin

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

2000).6 esenormscontinuedtobeadoptedandadapted,accordingtosocialand

demographicchanges(Kusters2003).Nationalisticmovementsinthe19 th centuryregarded

this2uxinthestandardasdeterioration.Asaresult,them edievalvarietywas‘legitim ised’

asproperIcelandic,facilitatedbythecodi!cationofOldNorsegrammarbyRaskinthe19 th

century,whereitwasequatedwith(anidealisedvarietyof)19 th centuryIcelandic,downplayingthediJerencesbetweenthetwo(O

tóson1990,Árnason2003).

Inthistalk,IwilreportonanongoingstudyoftheeJectsofstandardisationon19 th

centuryIcelandicsyntax,whichaimstoinvestigatetheerasureofsyntacticvariantsandthe

extenttowhichthiscontributedtoits(aleged)uniformity.Iwilfocusonvariationinthe

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

opposedtoVf.-ADV,weresingledoutinthe1840sandasociatedwithDanish:

(1) a. .ervérekkiátum voná (ADV-Vf.,“Danish”)

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

6elinguisticstatusofthevariantsin(1)isamaterofdebate,asIwiladdresinthetalk.

BycomparingdiJerentregistersbeforeanda?erADV–Vf.becamestigmatised,Iwishto

asestheeJectsof19 th centuryprescriptivism .In general,itseem sthatIcelandic

standardisationfocu sedm oreon(stylistic)details,asVanderSijs(2004)alsoconcludesfor

Dutch,thanmajorgrammaticalchangestakingplace,e.g.Verb-Objectplacement;Icelandic

underwentatypologicalshi?from 2exibleOV torigidVO ordersinthe19 th century

(Hróarsdó tir2000).Itistelingfrom anideologicalpointofview thatthechangefrom OV

toVO,apropersubsetoftheOldNorsesystem ,occu redbelow thelevelofconsciousne s,

in contrastto(1).Yet,despitethefactthatboth changesresultedin an increasing

convergencewithDanish,theVO orderswereneverperceivedassuch.

References:

Árnason,K.2003.Icelandic.In:GermanicStandardizations:PasttoPresent,pp.245-279.Ana

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

Hope,J.2000.Rats,bats,sparowsanddogs:biology,linguisticsandthenatureofStandard

English:6 eories,Descriptions,Con2icts.In: eDevelopmentofStandardEnglish1300-

1800,pp.49-56.LauraWright(ed.).CambridgeUniversityPres,Cambridge.

Hróarsdótir,Å.2000.WordOrderChangeinIcelandic:From OVtoVO.John Benjam ins

PublishingCompany,Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Kusters,W.2003.LinguisticComplexity: eIn↵uenceofSocialChangeonVerbalIn↵ection.PhD

disertation,UniversiteitLeiden.

O tóson,K.G.1990.Íslenskmálhreinsun:sögulegty⇠rlit.Íslenskm álnefnd,Reykjavík.

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


DouglasWilkersonandKyokoTakashi,NagoyaUniversityofForeign Studies,Nagoya(Japan)

Democracy of Signs: Prescription and Liberty in Japanese Names

6eJapaneseMinistryofJusticelimitsthesymbolswhichmaybeusedinwritingnew

personalnamestoalistof2,857(withanadditional230variantforms),thevastmajorityof

whichareChinesecharacters.

6eMinistryofEducation(Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnology)promotesa

morelimitedlist,andprescribesarestrictednumberoftraditionalreadings(pronunciations)forthesenon-alphabeticsymbols,buttheM

inistryofJusticepermitstheregistrationofvirtualyanyreadingforthesesignswhichconform

stotraditionalJapanese

phonology,includingfanciful,idiosyncratic,andforeign-in2uencedreadings.

6ispaperexaminesthedevelopmentoftheseparadoxicalpoliciesfrom thelate

1940stothelatestrevisionstothelistpromulgatedin2010.

WhileitappearsthattheoriginalinsistenceoftheMinistryofEducationonlimiting

thenum berofperm isiblesym bolsandreadingsinfavorof“dem ocracy”hasbeen

gradualymodi!edbytheM inistryofJusticeinfavorofgreaterpersonalliberty,itwilalso

beshownthatbothbureaucraciesactedtoconserveelementsoftraditionalJapanese

culture,andtostrengthentheirownbureaucraticindependence.

6eresultingregulationsexhibitacombinationofprescriptivepublicconformity

withprivateindividuallibertycharacteristicofmanyotherJapaneseinstitutions.

References:

AtsujiTetsuji.2010.Post-warHistoryofJapaneseCharacters(SengoNihon kanji-shi).Tokyo:

Shinchosensho.

EnmanjiJiro.2005.Post-warHistoryofCharactersforPersonalNames(Jinm eiyou-kanjinosengoshi).Tokyo:Iwanam

ishinsho.

YasuokaKouichi.2011.NewCharactersforCommonUseandPersonalNames:HistoryofCharacter

Restrictions(Atarash ijouyou-kanjitojinm ei-kanji:kanji-seigen norekishi).Tokyo:

Sanseido.


PublicSymposium

“W ieisdebaasoverdetaal?”(W hom akestherulesinalanguage?)

OnSaturday15June2013,LUCLisorganisingapublicsymposium.6iseventwilbe

mostlyin Dutch.

PublicSymposium ⇡ eme

Alstaalnormenenregelshee?,wiebepaaltdiedan?Enwiehandhaa?deorde?Enopwelkemanier?W

ieiser,kortom,debaasoverdetaal?Isdatbijvoorbeelddeoverheid,zijnhet

deskundigen,ofwordtdenorm helemaaldemocratischbepaald.

VoorhetNederlandsblijkendemeesteregels(“zegniet‘hunhebben’maar“zijhebben’”,

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

DeNederlandseTaalunie,hetoverheidsorgaanvoortaalbeleid,hee?weldespelingbijwet

vastgelegd,maarnietdegrammatica.Zoudatmoetenveranderen?

Zou iemand naardieregelswilen luisteren?En hoeisdatin andereculturen georganiseerd?

PublicSymposium organisers

JaapdeJong

MarcvanOostendorp

PublicSymposium contactdetails

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

-2013.htm l

Email lucl-sym posium @ hum .leidenuniv.nl


MAPOFTHELIPSIUSBUILDING

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines