W1A-015 Language purism-1.txt
Response to The Campaign for Real Grammar.

Purging the Purists

In last week's edition of The Oldie, Michael Dummett, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, published a plea for a return to the old days of linguistic purity. Arguing that the English of grammar books is in retreat, he believes that unless something is done to reverse this process, we are in danger of becoming straddled with a language that impedes communication rather than encourages it.

"Like everything else, even mountains, languages change. Unlike mountains, languages are human artefacts; we, their speakers, therefore determine in which respects they change and in which they do not."

So said the opening of last week's article in which Michael Dummet argued that we can in fact stem the tide of linguistic change. While some changes to language are inadvisable, Dummett argues that other variations are desirable. He places great import on the misuse of the word "creditable" by an anonymous "eminent" person on Channel 4 News, claiming that this is a prime example of the way that our use of the English language is rapidly deteriorating. Languages, he suggests, are finely tuned instruments and without rules to govern them they become useless as tools of communication, and therefore cannot survive.

Of course, in the event of every English speaker on the planet suddenly heading off on a tangent and creating their own personal dialect, things would get a little difficult, however, linguistic change is a gradual thing, words and phrases don't just appear from nowhere, but enter our everyday speech in a variety of gradual ways.

Dummett belongs to the letters page of The Times, where it seems that scores of pedants write in to complain about he likes of John Major's recent misuse of "lay" for "lie". What these people seem to be incapable of comprehending is that language is a living breathing thing. By its very nature language needs to grow and evolve, it is after all how language developed in the first place. To attempt to stem the flow of linguistic change is to try to halt an ongoing process that dates back to the dawning of intelligent life on the planet. Language is a thing that must be respected, some may argue that this is what Professor Dummett was saying in his article, however, it would only be correct to think of language in terms of being our master and not the other way about.

Professor Dummett cites a letter to the Independent from a professor of cultural studies, who stated that in principle, it is impossible for a native language speaker to make a mistake: "language consists in whatever native speakers say." Dummett refutes this by asking if this principle extends to young children and if so, at what age does a child become incapable of making a mistake? Noted linguists L.G. Andersson and Peter Trudgill state that "children know the basics of the phonological, morphological and syntactic systems of language. These are the central parts of the sound system and the grammar. Other parts of the language take more times to learn, in particular vocabulary and pragmatics....we keep learning vocabulary and situation-specific language all through our lives." We are all guilty of grammatical slip-ups and malapropisms, the sheer volume of talking that we "perform" everyday renders even the most eloquent and articulate speaker capable of occasional error. Language is a spontaneous thing, there is very little time to prepare or construct the perfect grammar or vocabulary, when we speak, the sentence that comes out will depend on various factors and we will frequently stall for time with planning elements or fillers like er, um, eh. These small particles of speech do not even exist in the written language, they have no meaning and do not add any dignity to the act of speech. Professor Dummett might take note that it is men with an academic education that er the most, also making the hardest to interrupt, a skill he has perhaps himself used many times when arguing with linguists.

Upon reading in last week's article, that Dummett's book on "correct" grammar had been "widely welcomed", I would have to concede that this is not surprising at all, there is a growing number of people who welcome the idea of a return to Victorian values about "correct" language, no doubt accompanied by Victorian teaching methods as well, this conjuring up scenes picturing left-handed children with the offending arm tied behind their backs, to ensure that they write as well as speak in a correct manner.

One point of concession that I would make is that children should be able to use a more formal method of speech when a situation requires it, but not at the expense of their own dialect and slang. We all change our way of speaking according to what situation we find ourselves in, and it is imperative that this ability is not stamped our by an eventual triumph by one dialect, whether it be the Standard English of Professor Dummett or the various types of slang and dialect that he and his supporters so vehemently oppose.

All language is a beautiful thing, the world would be less interesting if we all spoke the same way. I suggest that Professor Dummett and his like should learn to tolerate if not appreciate the diverse forms of English language that are apparent in the society of today. At the beginning of his article, Dummett states that the tide of linguistic change can be stopped, I would remind him of what happened to King Canute.
