Group items tagged

Though newspaper style guides attempt to steer writers and editors through the trickier waters of the English language and try to confer consistency in grammar, punctuation and spelling, their well-intended prescriptivism may result in confusion and controversy. Take, for instance, the term "actor".

The increased acceptance of the word "hopefully" to modify an entire sentence symbolizes a battle over the evolving English language: prescriptivism vs. descriptivism again.

When it comes to language, many people distinguish between "prescriptivism" (the idea that correct usage should be defined by authorities) and "descriptivism" (the idea that any way a lot of people use the language is correct).

The French have gotten themselves into one of their recurrent linguistic lathers, this one over the changes in their spelling that will be taking effect in the fall. The changes were originally proposed more than 25 years ago.

National Public Radio interviewed linguist John McWhorter on words and semantic change. The interview provides several contemporary examples showing how words and language are constantly changing. Mc Whorter asserts, "I think that we should learn not to listen to people using natural language as committing errors because there's no such thing as making a mistake in your language if a critical mass of other people speaking your language are doing the same thing."

Wallace's erudite essay explores the conflict between prescriptivists and descriptivists. Lengthy, but a worthy read!.

Prescriptivist vs. descriptivist views of language. Grammatical rules are akin to dress codes: They were once dogma, but now are in a constant flux.

Interesting NPR story on the use of "ax"--apparently not simply the oft-maligned African-American Vernacular English version of "ask". That particular pronunciation of the word has a more distinguished pedigree, dating back to Chaucer.

In his new book, _Bad English_, author Ammon Shea examines the evolution of English, documenting the changing usage and social acceptability of 200+ English words.

According to standard grammar, "they" and its related forms can only agree with plural antecedents. But English sorely lacks a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun, and "they" has for centuries been pressed into service for that purpose, much to the grammarians' chagrin. Now, it seems, those who have held the line against singular "they" may be easing their stance.

Courtesy Merriam-Webster: 10 U.S. Presidential (and other politicians') gaffes: even presidents commit word crimes. But are they? Some are blatant bloopers, e.g. "Sometimes you misunderestimated me." - George W. Bush, News Conference, 12 Jan. 2009, yet others, like Warren Harding's use of "normalcy" or Barack Obama's "enormity" have become acceptable. Welcome to language evolution.

Singular "they," the gender-neutral pronoun, has been named the Word of the Year by a crowd of over 200 linguists at the American Dialect Society's annual meeting in Washington, D.C. on Friday evening. In a landslide vote, the language experts chose singular they over "thanks, Obama," ammosexual, "on fleek," and other contenders for this annual award given to the most significant term or word in the past year. Singular they, which The Washington Post officially adopted in its Style guide in 2015, is already a common habit in American speech. An example: "Everyone wants their cat to succeed." Earlier, the so-called proper way to say it would have been, "Everyone wants his or her cat to succeed."But what gave this word new prominence was its usefulness as a way to refer to people who don't want to be called "he" or "she." "We know about singular they already - we use it everyday without thinking about it, so this is bringing it to the fore in a more conscious way, and also playing into emerging ideas about gender identity," said linguist Ben Zimmer, language columnist for the Wall Street Journal, who presided over the voting this Friday afternoon.

Article talks re: the changing nature of a period. Its original function, to indicate the end of a thought, has become obsolete in texting, because of the ability to "send". Now the period can be used to indicate seriousness or a sense of finality. But caution is needed, said linguist Gretchen McCulloch, noting that problems can start to arise when you combine a period with a positive sentiment, such as "Sure" or "Sounds good." "Now you've got positive words and serious punctuation and the clash between them is what creates that sense of passive-aggression," said McCulloch. Binghamton University psychology professor Celia Klin says a period can inadvertently set a tone, because while text messaging may function like speech, it lacks many of the expressive features of face-to-face verbal communication, like "facial expressions, tone of voice, our ability to elongate words, to say some things louder, to pause." Our language has evolved, and "what we have done with our incredible linguistic genius is found ways to insert that kind of emotional, interpersonal information into texting using what we have," said Klin. "And what we have is things like periods, emoticons, other kinds of punctuation. So people have repurposed the period to mean something else."

This article focuses on a new book which argues that informal online communication is sometimes more advanced than even the most elegant prose. It also explores the possibility that internet slang makes people better writers due to the fact that it sharpens the user's communication skills to get the point across, even through the use of emojis.

Canadian linguist Gretchen McCulloch rails against linguistic prescriptivism. She feels that people should exhibit flexible and receptive attitudes towards linguistic change: "We create successful communication when all parties help each other win." She also notes that "the only languages that stay unchanging are the dead ones."

Konglish is the term used to describe the variety of English unique to Korea. It is just one of many varieties of the English language that exists far beyond the borders of so-called "inner circle" Englishes - those spoken in countries such as Britain and the US, for example. The author takes umbrage against those who argue that Konglish is incorrect. From a linguistic standpoint, deeming only one variety of grammar and vocabulary usage as correct is, nonsensical. Rather, Konglish reflects cultural identity, connects with linguistic diversity and above all, is already used to communicate in Korea, which is the ultimate purpose of language.