Elang 350 aspen edit nt

ELANG 350, Professor Suzy Bills Personal Response Paper, Prompt #3

The Democratic Spirit of Modern American Usage The usage wars began for me when I casually mentioned to my dad that I was learning about prescriptivism and descriptivism in my linguistics class. You see, mMy dad is a lawyer, staunch conservative, and dedicated prescriptivist. His time as a clerk for Clarence Thomas

Commented [NT1]: This is not a bad title, but it does not necessarily grab my attention or make me excited to read your paper.

Commented [NT2]: As someone who has learned about prescriptivism and descriptivism in every class I’ve taken since last semester, this first sentence does interest me. It also clearly shows which prompt you’re responding to.

molded him into the Supreme Court junkie that he is, and my conversations with him always involve some form of debate over aspects of politics, language, or society. He is a staunch conservative and a dedicated prescriptivist. When I told him I wasn’t really sure whether I was a prescriptivist or a descriptivist, he immediately sent me an lengthy article by David Foster Wallace—purportedly one of the best pieces of writing my dad had ever read—that reviews Brian Garner’s Modern American Usage, a well-known work in editing circles and Supreme Court circles alike. It was after reading this article that I realized the prescriptivism vs. descriptivism debate in American English is just a branch off a much larger issue: the nature of change and continuity in human history.

A self-described usage fanatic, Wallace explains that we can only address the issues of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism and traditionalism vs. egalitarianism with a “Democratic Spirit”; that is, a passionate conviction to one’s own beliefs accompanied by a conscientious respect for the opinions of others (Wallace 2005, 72). I strongly believe that our country, as well as our usage choices, should be guided more by a Democratic Spirit thanand less by highly polarized, dogmatic viewpoints at either end of the spectrum. We need both prescriptivism and descriptivism in American English. Prescriptivism satisfies a deep-felt need for continuity amidst an ever-changing reality, while descriptivism acknowledges the boundless variation and adaptive

Commented [NT3]: This just seems like extra information that does not really add to the paper or address the prompt— it was a little distracting for me, so I would suggest deleting it.

Stander 2 ability of human activity. The beauty and integrity of the English language rest on the balance between these two opposing but complementary views.

Though the averagemost users of the English language may not realize it, there is a virtual war among contemporary language pundits. In the words of Amy Einsohn, “The battle is

Commented [NT4]: “The average user” makes it sound a little like you’re talking down to those people.

between the descriptivists, who seek to document how language is used, and the prescriptivists, who champion an edenic vision of how the language should be used” (Einsohn 2000, 337). I associate prescriptivism with the graduate student who clings to the latest edition of Merriam-

Commented [NT5]: This is a great quote to use, and I like that you mention the “war” right before quoting Einsohn, but I would suggest integrating the quote a little better. It feels like it’s just thrown in.

Webster, the high school English teacher who marks down every use of a contraction in formal writing, and the editor who is too insecure to deviate from Chicago in the slightest. But who decides which strings of sounds constitute words and which are gibberish? Who decides that it is

Commented [NT6]: Not wanting to deviate from Chicago does not mean that someone is insecure. The word choice there just seems a bit judgmental.

incorrect to use fewer and less interchangeably or to begin a sentence with because?

Even the most committed prescriptivist must acknowledge that language inevitably changes

Art thou surprised? No grammarian or usage expert would claim that historical precedent

Commented [NT7]: I see what you’re doing here, but I had to reread the paragraph to figure it out—I thought that you were quoting something because it was such an abrupt change. You could use this kind of language AFTER you explain that English speakers decided to change thou to you.

The change without warning is a little jarring on its own.

mandates that we continue to use thou today, which begs the question: “Who’s to say which

Commented [NT8]: I don’t know if it fits here, but this is just an example of what I mean.

throughout time. Art thou surprised? Thou shouldst not be, for sSomewhere along the way, English speakers decided not to use thou as a second person pronoun and replaced it with you.

changes are natural and good and which are corruptions?” (Wallace 2005, 75).

Accompanying prescriptivism is a debate about authority. Over hundreds of years, scholars have perpetuated rules borrowed from Latin like the belief that it is“ never okay to split an infinitive” and that one should “never end a sentence with a preposition.” Others have introduced new rules that are just as arbitrary, enforced their own passionate preferences for one particular usage over another, or obstinately refused to allow any revisions to the language as dictated by usage authorities. Nobody gives them this authority,; yet, we trust them unquestioningly.

Commented [NT9]: I really like how you integrated this quote. It’s nice here and adds to the paragraph well.

Stander 3 Descriptivists reject these self-styled language authorities, though descriptivism is not without its follies. Because language changes constantly, descriptivists document English as it is spoken, claiming that all usage is relative (Wallace 2005, 83). No one is given authority to make arbitrary judgments about which forms of language are better than others, and writing is more

embrace it. Instead of sneering atrejecting “nonstandard” usage, they accept all varieties of

Commented [NT10]: Is this something you got from a source? I’ve never heard of this idea of descriptivism being less focused on communication. Doesn’t descriptivism claim that if it’s understood, it’s acceptable? That means (at least to me) that communication is what is most important. I could be wrong, but this part confused me.

English as equally valuable.

Commented [NT11]: You don’t have to use “rejecting” here, but “sneering” sounds a little too judgmental to me.

about self-expression than about communication. Descriptivists acknowledge that the world is changing and that our language will inevitably change with it. Instead of fighting change, they

However, it is impossible to document all varieties of English among all English-speaking

Commented [NT12]: I like these last two sentences a lot. (:

people. It is true that language changes, but some changes are more desirable than others for clear communication. It would also be ridiculous to pretend that a standard does not exist in American English—a standard to which students and professionals and corporations are held accountable. The fact is that we do judge other people by the language they use. No matter the ideological value we place on equality in speech, the reigns of prescriptivism have been pulled so tight for so many years that we’ve learned to categorize people based on the way they write and speak.

Thus, both in the war between prescriptivism and descriptivism, each hasve their its place in the study of language and in the editing profession. Humans need continuity and we need a way to communicate with one another. We need some common ground, some way to send and decode the complex thoughts and feelings in our brains. There is something to be said for holding to certain principles of language use, for careful consideration of style in writing, for communicating clearly and effectively. Most prescriptivists aren’t so persnickety that they would reject any change in usage guidelines. Brian Garner admits, “Because no language stands still—

Commented [NT13]: Again, the last two sentences of this paragraph are really nice as well. You make very good, very strong points here.

Stander 4 because the standards of good usage change, however slowly—no guide could ever be written to the satisfaction of all professional editors. . . . For the writer or editor of most prose intended for a general audience, the goal is to stay within the mainstream of literate language as it stands today” (Garner 2010, 5.219). Though I roll my eyes at citation conventions, though I fully embrace the singular “they” construction, though I think contractions should be completely acceptable in formal writing, there is value in adhering to the expectations of the audience.

Authors and editors must meet the readers’ needs for both change and continuity in communication. Carol Fisher Saller puts it this way: “Although style and grammar rules change and acceptance levels change, the problem is knowing how to judge whether a usage or construction has become acceptable to our expected audience. It’s not good for business to be on the cutting edge of grammar” (Saller 2009, 53).

We are not, however, slaves to the English language. It is a tool that we have created to express ourselves and it inevitably changes when we need to express new things. Linguistic signs are largely meaningless until we agree that they mean something. My experience as an anthropology minor has changed the way I see language as a social construct in American society. Social constructs have no basis in physical reality, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t real.

Social constructs become meaningful because they are shared ways of interpreting reality.

Language is one of those things, and we have harnessed it to express ourselves clearly and efficiently through the conventions we have created in grammar and usage.

The war in contemporary usage is the result of too much polarization and too little tolerance for either point of view. Editors, myself included, tend to lean to the prescriptive side. It’s part of the job description. Nevertheless, I will strive to work with a mix of prescriptivism and descriptivism because my experiences have led me to believe that editing is more about using

Commented [AS14]: Delete? Put somewhere else? Help.

Commented [NT15R14]: This definitely feels out of place here. You could integrate different parts of this into different places throughout your paper, but as a whole, the paragraph doesn’t feel right on its own. I actually think you could do without this paragraph entirely.

Commented [NT16]: This is a little vague. Even if you think it goes without saying, maybe just mention WHY editors lean to the prescriptive side in a little more detail.

Even if you just say that we NEED to find problems and make changes.

Stander 5 language appropriately rather than correctly. Instead of relying on a fierce propensity for one side or the other, a truly good editor knows how and when to make the judgment call between

Commented [NT17]: I would actually argue that it’s a pretty even mix between both, and that’s why I added in “my experiences have let me to believe…”

upholding the principles of felictitous usage and recognizing when the language has been demonstrably changed by those who use it. A good editor has a Democratic Spirit.

Works Cited Einsohn, Amy. 2000. The Copyeditor’s Handbook. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Garner, Brian. 2010. “Grammar and Usage.” In The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.ition).

Commented [NT18]: It depends on if you’re using MLA, APA, etc. Double check, but I think this is one way to do it.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Saller, Carol F. 2009. The Subversive Copy Editor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wallace, David F. 2005. “Authority and American Usage.” In Consider the Lobster and Other Essays, 64-127. New York City: Back Bay Books.

Commented [NT19]: This is a really great paper! You clearly put a lot of thought into it. I like a lot of the points you make and you write very clearly. The quotes you chose are great and they fit nicely with your topic. I would like to see one or two more specific experiences, though, so it feels more personal (since it’s a personal response paper).