STANDARD RULES – chapter 16

 Creating a standard: the orthographers (the writing system), the orthoepists (the pronunciation system, how
sounds are interrelated) and the grammarians (structure of words, inflectional variation, syntax)  they are
more finite than VC (new items added every day).
 It’s not good to pay attention to words which are used occasionally (disinterested)  draw attention to problems
which turn up on every page and every conversation.
 18th century: GRAMMAR: the most powerful means of drawing attention, it relies equally to speech and writing,
received least attention.
 Orthography: standard existed, as far as spelling was concerned, now we talk about bad spelling. There was
still some sorting out to be done in relation to punctuation – the apostrophe, hyphenated or spaced compounds
 it was standard in the 18th century.
 Grammars: Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar, Johnson’s An English Grammar … for the benefit of all strangers
(focus on the way the language was used by educated people because of interest from abroad). 1750–1770: a
turning point, more grammars published: Robert Lowth: Short Introduction to English Grammar and Linley
Murray’s English Grammar. Murray’s had become the second bestselling work (after N. Webster). He would be
given pre-eminence, whether support or condemn: the bad English of L. M. and other writers on the English
language; Lowth had been criticising Shakespeare, Pope, Swift  people were failing in their effort to speak or
write properly (Murray shared the opinion).
 Grammars weren’t detailed: Murray recognized only two noun cases (nominative and possessive), only
occasional sign of prescriptivism: imbalance between descriptive analytic statement and prescriptive interpretive
commentary, bizarre argumentation of choice (we do not consider little children as persons …). ‘Nor let no
comforter approach me’ (OE).
 They sometimes gave reasons why sth is correct. Their choice was based on a notion of aesthetic (more
elegant), on clarity (precise), on undefined conception of the character of English (more natural).
 Prescriptive approach’s attempt to restrict notions as clarity and precision to the choice of one alternative when
choosing between other alternatives which would convey the same idea was well  between (2 options) –
among (more)? Because between means 2 – etymology cannot be a guide to contemporary usage! NOTHING
IS ABOUT THE REAL NATURE OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR!
 Murray’s split an infinitive by inserting tan adverb between to and the verb (I want to really understand) ... NOT
MANY RULES, but they were powerful as class discriminators, by the early 19th century indicators of a standard.
 PRONUNCIAITON: there was double pronunciation: cursory and colloquial + regular and solemn, Johnson
opted for a representation of the solemn variety, taking the written language as a guide, Murray: -ing
pronunciation but JOHN WALKER thought all aspects of pronunciation had to be brought within the fold.
ELOCUTION: people were prepared to pay for it. Walker published an idea for an English pronouncing
dictionary.
 Walker did not believe in the relevance or desirability of linguistic change and variation. He cities two objections
to attempting to write a pronouncing dictionary: pronunciation changes too rapidly (would not be relevant long)
and there is too much variation. But the believes that exists model for pronunciation  LONDON.
 RECEIVED: language among the learnèd and polite, the further away ordinary people live, the worse is their
situation (Irish and Scots?). Walker’s approach is unequivocally patronizing and stigmatizing.
 Cockney faults by Walker: pronouncing s after st (posts), w for v and vice versa, not sounding h after w, not
sounding h where it ought to be and vice versa.
 THE GLOTTAL STOP
 CONTRADICTIONS: Lord Chesterfield: wanted Johnson to be a dictator of the language; Noah Webster looked
at Britain in disbelief (even well-bred people often surrender their right of private judgement to these literary
governors). Society had ignored proposals for an authoritative Academy. Criticism: Joseph Priestley:
Grammarians appear to have acted precipitately, it must be allowed that the custom of speaking is the original
and only just standard of any language.
 Sheridan saw the need for an identifying unity: he published British Education, he argued that immorality,
ignorance, and false taste of contemporary Britain were the result of poor education. He believed only a Revival
of the art of speaking and the study of our language would solve the problem.
 Language norms would guarantee social normality and the avoidance of civil discord. And improved elementary
education was the means.