The Beginnings Of Prescriptive Rules In English

The Beginnings Of Prescriptive Rules In inclineThis research paper traces the line of descents of normative grammar in the slope lyric poem. It shows how the beginning of prescriptivism is closely connected with the changes in the society of the 17th and eighteenth centuries. The cheat of printing press, better social mobility and better education, in one amend smart or an otherwise helped subscribe to side of meat to its standard level. Prescriptive efforts of the above c completely downed centuries were withal helpful in codifying the incline delivery and setting this verbiage as the standard one.INTRODUCTIONMy research paper traces the beginnings of normative rules in the English speech. The thesis is that prescriptive rules came into existence in the nineteenth carbon. However, subsequently rakeing above mentioned works, I discovered that its beginnings could be traced before this period. Further more, the other self-reliance is that the scrape up of pr escriptivism has been set into motion by changes in doctrine and economy, and subsequently in society, and we sh whole try to prove this assumption to be right through and through knocked out(p) this es conjecture. Also, some of the rules nigh commonly known as prescriptive rules result be mentioned.PRESCRIPTIVE AND DESCRIPTIVEIn this introduction we provide define what prescriptive rules argon, and point out its counter severalise decriptivism (agreement). These terms be utilise in linguistics and both guard ( non only prescriptive and descriptive rules, hardly also prescriptive and descriptive grammars) avid supporters, for subject R.A. Lafferty and David Foster W every(prenominal)ace, respectively.In linguistics, prescription corporation refer both to the computer code and the enforcement of rules governing the enjoyment of a particular language. These rules can cover such(prenominal)(prenominal) topics as standards for spelling and grammar or syntax, or rules regard ing what is deemed soci tout ensembley or politically correct. Prescription includes the mechanisms for establishing and of importtaining an interregional language or a standardized spelling system. It can also include declarations of what particular groups consider to be good grasp. If that taste is conservative, prescription may be resistant to language change. If it is radical, prescription may be productive of neologisms. Prescription can also include recommendations for sound language usage.As already mentioned, prescriptivism has its counterpart descriptivism. Descriptive methods observe and temperament how language is used in practice, which is the basis of all linguistic research. academic descriptive work is usually found on text or corpus analysis, or on field studies. However, the term description includes each individualists observations of their own language usage. Descriptive linguistics eschews value judgments and drags no recommendations. In short, descripti ve linguists do non think that something can be deemed vilify in language usage.These approaches to language are seen by m whatever as opposites because one defends what language should be kindred, while the other states how language sincerely functions in everyday society. We can also claim that they are complementary, because best-selling(predicate) debates around language issues revolve around the question how to balance them.THE submitAs mentioned above, my original thesis was that prescriptivism first gear appeared in the nineteenth century. I based this thesis on the fact that the nineteenth century, or more precisely the Victorian period, was the eon of great social change, which led to great social mobility. My interest in this period and some previous essays I wrote about the mentioned period had led me to take this stand. Studies conducted by Dr. Shadya A.N. Cole (The climb on of Prescriptivism) and Laura Wright (The Development of archetype English), make me think otherwise.Different events, historical and social, contri anded to the rise of prescriptivism, which doer that prescriptivism did not develop outside society. Cole states that virtually prescriptive rules were made in the midst of 1650 and 1800 (Cole 2003119). This covers a big time span to consider, just this was an era that saw some of the most interesting changes take place. In that time frame, the UK witnessed change in the political arena. The absolute monarchy was change into fundamental monarchy1. This was the result and a sign of the growing power of the middle layer. spot of the middle class could best be seen in the English urbane War (1642-1651), also known as the Puritan Revolution, and by the institution of the Commonwealth. One of the things that also had a significant impact on the get across of prescriptivism was the expansion of the colonies, which provided the Kingdom with vast amounts of money and resources indigenceed for industry, and also mad e the middle class more affluent. All of these events led to social mobility, which was something that had not been seen before (Cole 2003 119).The fresh emerging middle-class was formed and it strived for social betterment. This betterment, on with good etiquette, included language. In search of such modes of behavior, which characterized the nobility, the middle class had to look outside their own customs.It might be advisable to mention here William Caxton and the year 1476. This is the starting point of the English printing press. It carries magnificence because it opened the doors to vernacular works, which were designed for the middle class and nobility, and also provides a precise beginning for the tracing of orthographic reform during the late fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. One of the most important works of that time was the printing of the discussion into the vernacular language and that, consequently, opened the doors to preaching in the vernacular.Pr inting press, without any doubt, helped to diffuse fellowship much faster and in all levels of the society. At this point all kinds of printed material became available, from newspapers, journals, pamphlets, to books. Along with this rose the number of literate large number.As commercial middle-class came into prominence, it spread literate education through wider circles of society and encouraged the study of modern unconnected languages (Cole 2003 121). The separation of the Anglican Church from the Church of Rome in 1533-34 made significant changes in the characteristics of the universities. Before, universities had been the professional schools of the clergy, but now education expended into the sciences and humanities. Latin and Greek were muted the languages needed to be learnt, but demand for the English language to be taught was also growing.The demand for learning English marks a routine point. Before that time, the upper-classes insisted on their children existence flu ent in Greek and Latin along with French. On the other hand, with the rise of the middle-class the tide started to whirl because English was getting appraisal and education was aimed at producing speakers of correct English (Cole 2003 121).Again, this demand can be traced to the changes in the society. As the middle-class grew, 2 sub-classes started to emerge. Those were the more genteel merchant class and the less genteel work class. The decisive factor in their separation was the way they spoke and wrote. Thus, the learn of the English language became necessary for the acceptance into genteel society. Philosophy and the flow way of thinking considerably impact linguistic research. The influential new stream in philosophy was rationalism which was manifested in the tendency to act to even up disputes by using logic and it became dominant in the language usage.English language started to gain prominence. Variations, that had arisen through years were no long-range cosmos l ooked at with as great tolerance as before. Latin and Greek still carried a great importance. They were the languages on which English grammar was modeled. However, Latin had more influence over English than any other language. Latin conventions and examples were carried over into English to make it more appealing. One of the reasons for this was that Latin grammar was seen as an appropriate pattern upon which to model an English grammar (Cole 2003 119). The early books written in English were textbooks for the instruction of a foreign language or books that provided a basis for the study of Latin. Now that books were being written for the instruction of English, the authors essentially applied the same pattern as they did for Latin. Linguists were trying to force English into a linguistic mold that was no longer suitable for a living language. They wanted to have the same logic, clarity and force in English as they had when they were using Latin. British writers were worried that English would bring chaos and instability, and would destroy the ease of dialogue afforded by the stable immaculate language. One of the early proponents of the call for the authorative ordinance of English was bathroom Dryden2. Eventually, this regularization led to the common acceptance of prescriptive outlook on the language and the rules of correctness. From what was said before regarding the new middle-class, we can conclude that the popularity of the authoritarian elbow grease was due to the popular demand of the middle class for guidance on how to use English ripely. Elizabeth Bohnert claims that the need for the proper usage of English also affected linguistic process patterns. What she argues is that the speech patterns of the educated and aristocratic in the swell were naturally considered to be superior throughout the 16th and 17th centuries (Bohnert 2008 1). It was not until the age of prescriptivism that real accents began to be considered faulty.As the middle- class increased in wealth, they desired to have the education and the manners of the ruling class. Their basic assumption was that variation in language was undesirable and printers catered to the need of the wealthy by producing various handbooks. Since material possessions no longer carried the stigma of class, the manner of speaking, pronunciation and grammar became useful in qualification distinctions among classes. In the late 18th century a few writers from diverse linguistic backgrounds took it upon themselves to distinguish between proper and improper pronunciation, which was a way to instruct the provincials on how to imitate the speech of Londoners.Latin influence eventually became more widespread, which decreased the freedom and laissez faire of English. English style and elegance reflected those of classical Latin. If at that place were differences found between the two languages, English was always referred to as faulty, because Latin was after all a classical langu age. What Latin tallyered was the definite rules that writers could appeal to and rely on (Cole 2003 121). English was not reliable because it had no grammar, or at least(prenominal) that was the common assumption. or so writers, when report in English, had to transform their thoughts or ideas first into Latin so that they could see what the best way of converting them into English was. acquire of Latin course greatly enriched English vocabulary, even though this was not something new. However, there were those who thought that such haggling were redundant. This led to the famous inkhorn3 strife. This controversy came at the time when English was replacing Latin as the main language of science and learning in England. Inkhorns were new words that were being introduced into the language by writers, often self-consciously borrowing from Classical literature. Critics regarded these words as useless as they rentd knowledge of Latin or Greek to be understood. They also contended that there were words with identical gist already in English. some of these so-called inkhorn terms, such as dismiss, celebrate, encyclopedia, or ingenious stayed in the language and are nowadays commonly used. We essential stress here that even today Latin and Greek words can be found in stiff and scientific writing, but as Cole said those are polysyllabic words (Cole 2003 122).As English gained prominence, a new fear emerged among learned people. They thought that making English more linguistically rich would lead to ineloquent, imprecise, and ambiguous communication (Cole 2003 123). The assumption was that English had no codified grammar, which made learned people uneasy, but at the same time gave them a new ending to reach to define English by a set of rules. These rules, for instance about sentence structure and world choice, would be concord upon by all. However, usage differed very greatly because every writer had his own individual judgment on what was correct and wh at was not. In spite of their differences, linguists did agree on one fact, which was that English had a prior age when it was pure. It was thought that this power pure state could be restored. However, this turned to be more hard because every writer had his own period which he considered pure. Some considered Chaucers writing as ideal, some Shakespeares or Swifts.In the 15th century there was an attempt to establish an English Academy, which would deal with linguistic problems. This academy would be modeled on the French academy. The suggestion for setting up such an institution was made by potty Barret in the preface of his dictionary. The sterling(prenominal) proponent of this idea was Jonathan Swift. He claimed that language usage could and should be governed by an arbitrary authoritarian body (Cole 2003 125). Likewise, this proposal brought objections. Some, like John Oldmixon (a poet), though that such an academy would impose its ideas of the language usage on others. Man y contemporaries thought the same and the interest slowly waned. Nonetheless, the desire for the language to be ascertained, refined and dogged remained a popular sentiment. Now, the idea of private dictionaries came to be popular. The idea was to make a dictionary that would include all the words of English and a grammar that would detail the proper usage of such words.The two most important works were created in the second part of the 18th century those were Samuel Johnsons Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and Robert Lowths Short knowledgeableness to English Grammar (1762). Decisions about what to put in a dictionary and what to turn off were based on a lexicographers ideology. And every lexicographer has got/had one.One thing that presently comes to mind while going through these linguistic beginnings is that most of the writers sought-after(a) ways to petrify a language in a certain time. Almost all of them were afraid that their works would not be read by future g enerations because they would not know how. They could not grasp the fact that it is quite normal for a language to change through time and in contact with other languages.There were attempts for English syntax to be explained. The handbooks were the work of individuals who believed that reforms were necessary and that they were the ones to make them. Most of the reformers had no particular prep or qualifications other than the belief that they had a right do declare what was right and wrong about the English language. Some of them were members of the clergy and had knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Because they were all classically trained, they forced English into a classical mold. However, there were exceptions, like Joseph Priestleys The Rudiments of English Grammar. In it Priestley recognized the usage of reputable writers as the standard for linguistic propriety. The eighteenth-century grammarians wanted to prove that English was capable of being described systematically . They did not allow any variations in usage and were strictly against any uncertainty. Many of them based their pronouncements upon their personal preferences. Whenever Latin could not settle any disputed points in the grammar, they would turn to the authority of usage. It is safe to say that they were part prescriptive and part descriptive.By the 18th century, most grammarians agreed that usage must be the factor governing correctness in language. However, they could not agree whose usage should be standard. One that seems to stand out is George Campbell. He wrote Philosophy of Rhetoric in 1776, and in it he be English as reputable, national and present. He then explains what he instrument by these definitions. National means that language is neither rural nor foreign (he means Latin or French). Present usage means not the usage of the moment, but it is the usage of the recent past, which has stood the test of time. Reputable means the usage of the best writers.Some of the most notorious prescriptive rules came from this period. Examples of these are the usage of pronouns, It is I or It is me (the correct form is It is I because verb to be always has a nominative case after it). Other rules would be the difference between verbs lie and lay. Lie is a verb that does not require an object, whereas lay requires an object. Users were discouraged from using the modal verbs shall and will interchangeably. Shall should be used only with first person singular and first person plural, and will with second and third persons. The eighteenth century is responsible for the final bid of disapproval on multiple or forked negatives (Cole 2003 138). Lowth explicitly say the rule that two negatives are equivalent to an affirmative (We dont need no education). Another rule was that of ending a sentence with a preposition. It was John Dryden, the 17th-century poet and dramatist, who first promulgated the doctrine that a preposition may not be used at the end a sentence. Gr ammarians in the 18th century refined the doctrine, and the rule has since become one of the most venerated maxims of schoolroom grammar. simply sentences ending with prepositions can be found in the works of most of the great writers since the Renaissance. In fact, English syntax not only allows but sometimes even requires final placement of the preposition, as in We have much to be thankful for or That depends on what you believe in. Efforts to fiat such sentences to place the preposition elsewhere can have comical results, as Winston Churchill demonstrated when he objected to the doctrine by grammatical construction This is the sort of English up with which I cannot put.Split infinitives have been condemned as ungrammatical for about 200 years, but it is hard to see what exactly is wrong with saying to boldly go (The American Heritage Book of English Usage.). In fact, the split infinitive is distinguished both by its length of use and the grandeur of its users. People have b een splitting infinitives since the 14th century, and some of them include John Donne, Daniel Defoe, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Johnson, William Wordsworth, Abraham Lincoln, George Eliot and Henry James. The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. The belief is that because the Latin infinitive is a unmarried word, the English infinitive should be treated as if it were a single unit. But English is not Latin, and people split infinitives all the time without giving it a thought.I have already mentioned that prescriptivism also impacted the way people spoke. By the late 19th century prescriptivism had transformed into an effort to expunge any hint of accent that would betray regional distinction, including that of London. This created an environment of linguistic anxiety. During this time the term Cockney transformed into the most condemning term for improper speech in the 19th century. It came to harbinger somebody who is vulgar and ig norant. The whole 19th century London was pierce with Cockneyism. Prescriptivists described the Cockneys as the prime culprits of language degeneration, and a threat to all gentility and grace. Today, many linguists agree that this were mostly scare tactics aimed at the middle-classes, whose social insecurities made them a ready market for prescriptive coercion. Some such rules governing pronunciation were /h/ dropping (improper /h / usage was associated with the uneducated and illiterate, as proper usage required a knowledge of where h was made in spelling), /h/ insertion (came about as the hypercorrection of /h/ dropping), or post-vocalic /r/.The spate of books, magazines and newspapers that began flowing to the newly create and fast growing class of literate readers accelerated stabilization and by the beginning of the twentieth century the process of standardization of English was stabile. The 20th century gave many manuals written by authors of sufficient scholarship to make those manuals authoritative. One such example is The Kings English (1906) by the Fowler brothers and this was followed by youthful English Usage (1926).CONCLUSIONThe most important consequence of prescriptive grammar was that people could no longer claim that English had no rules. In addition to that, the distinction between the standard and non-standard usage was made visible. Standard usage is the one we still learn in schools today. Prescriptive grammarians fixed a number of disputed usages in language, even though they started off very indecisive on what the correct form was. Grammarians of that period emphasized rules that are still highly regarded today. Rules like the usage of pronouns I and me, double negation, or splitting the infinitive. After the invention of the printing press, English was promoted as a common language and some attempts at assigning formal structures to the language began to appear.Prescriptive rules have their ultimate justification in the communitys n eed to make their language meaningful. By making it meaningful, linguists tried to mirror English on the languages they thought were the most appropriate. They thought that classical languages were the best choice. In the end this led to some outrageous rules. The rule against split infinitives, for instance, is a consequence of the peculiar fact that English grammar is modeled on Latin even though Latin is a synthetic language and English is an analytic language. Nevertheless, the linguist of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries helped lead English into a codified and standard position by showing that it had grammar and rules that need to be obeyed.