An essay to explain how many aspects of English considered incorrect are actually correct and have been correct for thousands of years and to debunk the myth of prescriptionism
by
Eliott Eddings
Many aspects of English usage considered correct for centuries and considered correct in the majority of European languages have in recent years come under fire from prescriptionist grammarians. Where does fact break from fiction? Where's the thin line between correct and incorrect? Well, allow me to explain some of the most major arguments in English usage and explain its correct usage in historical English. English, while a modern language, should always look to its roots for answers on usage. While a great number of things have changed, many have not, and it's far better to look at the grammar of English through the centuries and compare it to that than to comapre it with, say, Latin which many prescriptionists do.
Concerning dictionaries and whether a word exists or is ''real'', a language by its very nature cannot ever be one-hundred percent defined, as languages are not static like dictionaries, yet dictionaries can attempt to do so. They do so in order to help people learn the meaning of words, and they are useful tools, but they aren't all-inclusive. No single dictionary can contain every word in English, and just because a word isn't in a dictionary doesn't mean it's not a word. Before the modern era, there were few if any complete dictionaries, even the best of which could never encompass an entire language. So, before the modern era, there were no words or, at best, there were only a few hundred words in English. Sound like a bunch of nonsense? It is. Dictionaries are meant to help, but they aren't definitive. A word is a word whether it is in a dictionary or not. Chaucer and Shakespeare are both responsible for introducing or directly creating a number of words, and a word is a word is a word whether it's listed in a dictionary or not. Dictionaries are just broad attempts at documenting language not a definitive list of words.
In addition, as stated before, many grammatical aspects of English now considered irregular and incorrect were, for a majority of its history, correct. There are many examples of these. Double negatives, for example, are now considered incorrect by most English speakers. They were, until the past few hundred years, considered standard and correct. Even the great Geoffrey Chaucer himself used double, triple and quadruple negatives on many occasions. When looking at other languages of the world, in particular European and the Indo-European family, you'll see double negatives are considered standard in a majority of languages. French, Spanish, Afrikaans, various dialects of Dutch and many other languages of Europe related to English consider double negatives standard. They're standard in most languages. They were standard in English for over a thousand years. Quite frankly, they're still standard now, and anyone who says the opposite is misinformed and wrong.
This brings us to another subject of debate, ain't. The word ain't has a colourful history stretching back to the 17th century when other contracted forms of verbs arose in English (isn't, aren't, can't, shan't, etc.). What then makes ain't any less of a word than isn't and aren't? Ain't also resolves one of the highly irregular and idiotic sounding aspects of grammar preached by prescriptionists, ''aren't I?''. When put in standard statement form, this becomes ''I are not''. Can you seriously believe that this is good grammar? Frankly, it isn't.
There is one aspect of ain't that does need to be clarified though. While ain't is a correct word, it has a limited use. It is simply a shortened form of ''am not''. So, you can only correctly use ain't in situations where you could say ''am not''. So, while there is no problem with the word itself, its usage should be considered as it is ofted misused by English speakers. This is, perhaps, one reason why ain't fell out of favour amongst prescriptionists. However, a more correct approach would simply be to properly instruct people on its usage instead of striking the word itself.
Ending sentences in prepositions is also a matter of debate amongst English speakers. The debate arises in an old work on English grammar in which Robert Lowth said ending sentences in prepositions sounds common. He never said it was incorrect, only common and best-suited to familiar situations. Many people in turn took this as meaning it is incorrect. It has never been historically incorrect, and this arises purely out of immitation of Latin.
Split infinitives are yet one more debate amongst English speakers. Some say that to split in a infinitive (or to place any words between an infinitive, which is an unconjugated verb which, in English, consists of ''to'' plus the verb. eg. to run) is entirely incorrect. Let us examine it from a historical basis. In Old English, a majority of verbs did not have the word ''to'' before them and, like German and Dutch, ended with ''en''. Also, in the majority of European languages, verbs consist of a single word. Amar, for example, means to love in Spanish. So, in this matter, it is hard to compare English with its related language and historical roots. There were a small number of verbs which did contain prepositions, although they weren't the majority. They were, however, unsplit. Due to the fact that they only represented a minority of verbs and also due to the fact that a majority of Old English works were written in a single dialect, it is extremely difficult to make any educated rule by going to Old English. So, we will travel forward to Middle English where verbs were, as in Modern English, preceded by to. In Middle English, there are numerous examples of both unsplit infinitives and split infinitives. Generally, the later the text, the more likely it was to contain split infinitives. In Early Modern English, however, split infinitives died out almost completely before being suddenly revived in the Modern English period.
Given that there is sketchy evidence on both sides, one can only make an educated guess on split infinitives, and one cannot with supreme authority either condone nor condemn split infinitives. In many instances, however, split infinitives do seem clearer than their unsplit counterparts and make for a more accessible speech. For this reason, I do not view them as necessarily incorrect. I do, however, recognise the validity of those who do hold a viewpoint which views them to be incorrect. This matter is mostly one of personal choice.
Singular they is another major category of debate in English. Looking at it from a historical basis, we see little if any proof to support its usage in Modern English. Many examples given are actually taken out of context and refer to plural people. So, therefore, singular they should be avoided. It has arisen mostly in the 20th century as a reaction of feminism and the quest for a more gender-neutral language. As it has little historical support, my best advice is to simply not use it.
A final note should be given about pronunciation of English. Probably more than most languages, English has numerous varieties which differ in pronunciation. A majority of the differences come in the pronunciation of vowels and whether or not they pronounce the letter R when not between vowels. For most of the 19th and the earlier part of the 20th century, received pronunciation was considered the standard. Given the historical pronunciation, however, it is the dialect furthest from how English would have been pronounced a thousand years ago. That's not to say it doesn't have uses. On the contrary, it is a pronunciation pattern both appealing to the auditory senses and one which makes for simple communication between people of varying backgrounds who otherwise might not understand a speaker from, say, Yorkshire.
No single accent today is one-hundred percent like how English was pronounced a thousand years ago, but many of them are closer. More about the historical pronunciation of English can be found on the internet, and this essay is not the place to go into great lengths explaining the phonology of older varieties of English. Do not feel, however, that any one variety of English spoken now is in any way greater nor lesser than another variety. All are, when compared to the original English pronunciation, bastardised forms.
This concludes my brief guide on English usage. Hopefully now, given the historical usage of English, you can see how many aspects considered incorrect by prescriptionists are actually correct. What gave rise to prescriptionism? Perhaps the quest for standardised language is largely responsible, or perhaps just a hidden agenda of the individual prescriptionists. While prescriptionists do have their logical points, I feel the safest way of determining English usage is to look back in history and see how English was spoken before our time. Only then can we get a true feeling for our language and how it's used. So, buck off the burden of prescriptionism and embrace true English, unadultered by modern rules which are often illogical and rarely based on historical fact.
Works Cited and Consulted:
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales: General Prologue. London. 1385.
Lowth, Robert. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. 1762.
"ain't." The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 11 Jul. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ain't>.
"an't." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 11 Jul. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/an't>.
Home