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

here - O - Universiteit Leiden

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?