A History of English Language

A history of the english language 318
An effort that gave promise of being saved from some of the pitfalls that beset the
reformers of language took the form of a Society for Pure English (S.P.E.). If it were to
escape the common fate of such efforts, it would have been because of the moderateness
of its aims and the fuller knowledge of the ways of language that some of its members
possessed. The society was founded in 1913, but World War I delayed its plans and it
was not until after the Armistice that it began its activities. The original committee was
composed of Henry Bradley, the distinguished philologist, Robert Bridges, the poet
laureate, Sir Walter Raleigh, Oxford Professor of English Literature, and Logan Pearsall
Smith, a well-known literary man. The moving spirit was Bridges. In their proposals they
stated their aim to be “to agree upon a modest and practical scheme for informing popular
taste on sound principles, for guiding educational authorities, and for introducing into
practice certain slight modifications and advantageous changes.” They specifically
disavowed any intention “of foolish interference with living developments.” Their hope
of directing the development of the vocabulary seems, in the light of history, perhaps
overoptimistic, but their recognition of the popular voice inspired confidence. “Now,
believing that language is or should be democratic both in character and origin, and that
its best word-makers are the uneducated classes, we would prefer vivid popular terms to
the artificial creations of scientists.” This at least is sound doctrine. One must likewise
applaud the recognition given to local dialects, from which the standard speech has so
often been enriched in the past. But most praiseworthy of all was the intention to achieve
its ends not by authoritative pronouncement but by the dissemination of fact and
enlightened opinion. For this purpose it proposed to issue from time to time short Tracts
on various linguistic topics and promote the discussion of pertinent questions. In this
respect the S.P.E. recalls the proposal of the anonymous writer of 1724 (cf. § 196). The
difference lies in the fact that this society actually issued more than three score of its
Tracts before becoming inactive.
Almost from the beginning some skepticism was expressed. Dissent appeared as early
as 1926. “The ‘Society for Pure English,’ recently formed by the Poet Laureate, is getting
a great deal of support at this moment, and is the literary equivalent of political Fascism.
But at no period have the cultured classes been able to force the habit of tidiness on the
nation as a whole…. The imaginative genius of the uneducated and half-educated masses
will not be denied expression.” 49 Nevertheless the movement appealed to many on
49
Robert Graves, Impenetrability, or The Proper Habit of English (London, 1926), pp. 30–31. Cf.
Basil de Selincourt: “The best and most English instinct is still that of resistance to change, and
above all to any plan or method of change, any committee or academy or association to school and
enlighten us.” (Pomona, or The Future of English, London, n.d., p. 69.)