CS 201 433 *Cultural Factors; *Diachronic Linguistics; Doctoral Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 095 531 CS 201 433 AUTHOR Drake, Glendon Frank TITLE Prescriptivism in American Thought: 1820-1970. PUB DATE 73 NOT! 142p.; Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$6.60 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS *Cultural Factors; *Diachronic Linguistics; Doctoral Theses; *English; Higher Education; *Language Usage; Linguistic Theory; Social Values; *United States History IDENTIFIERS *Prescriptivism ABSTRACT The American concern for prescriptive correctness in linguistic behavior, which derives from eighteenth centry British notions, met with considerable and significant challenge by the contrary descriptive notion in the first half of the nineteenth century. The energy of this challenge waned by mid-century and the prescriptive drive for linguistic uniformity and conformity not only revived, but took on new energy from nineteenth century American culture. The persistence of the prescriptive notion in the minds of educated and intelligent Americans throughout the twentieth century poses an interesting cultural problem. The °Third International° controversy and the black English controversy demonstrate the remarkable hold that the correctness doctrine has on our time. These controversies also give some insight into the means by which the status quo of prescriptivism is maintained within an alien general culture--principally by utilizing genteel co-optive devices and by linking the prescriptive linguistic goals with seemingly desirable social and political goals. (Author/RB) U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY BEST COPYWOW PRESCRIPTIVISM IN AMERICAN LINGUISTIC THOUGHT: 1820-1970 by Glendon Frank Drake "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCEIHIy COPY- RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTEDBY Glendon Frank Drake TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONALIN STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRO. DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEMRE. QUIRES PERMISSION OFTHE COPYRIGHT OMER Copyrighted 1973 by GlendonF. Drake ABSTRACT 1.6 ANMIA PRESCRIPTIVISM IN AMERICAN CO?' LINGUISTIC THOUGHT: 1820-1970 01 by Glendon Frank Drake Chairman: Joe Lee Davis The American concern for prescriptive correctness inlinguistic behavior, which derives from 18th century British notions, metwith considerable and significant challenge by the contrary descriptive notion in the first half of the 19th century, This reaction against the prescriptive notion and the movement toward a descriptivestandard of usage as a model for language behavior was informed ingeneral by the romantic milieu of the time. The challenge was energized specifi- cally by a reaction against rote learning and by the developmentof a national consciousness. The energy of this challenge waned by mid-century and theprescrip- tive drive for linguistic uniformity and conformity notonly revived, but took on new energy from 19th century American culture. This revival of prescriptivism in the latter half of the centuryaccords neatly with the shift in the general culture toward nationalintegra- tion and consolidation. The genteel tradition, the cultural apparatus of consolidation and integration, played a central role in therevival of prescriptivism. The persistence of the prescriptive notion in theminds of educated and intelligent Americans throughout the 20th century and up tothe present t4my poses an interestingcultural problem. The considerable amount of linpuistic scholar chip duringthiu century has consistently BEST COPYAVAILABLE argued against prescriptivism. The major cultural ethics of the cen- tury, science and relativism, militate against prescriptive correct- ness. Thus, the uncommon strength of continuity of the attitude during the 20th century signals the importance of the 19th century sources. The persistence cannot be explained merely by the expected normal historical continuity, although that too operates in this case. The explanation lies with the broadening of the educational insti- tution in the mid-19th century in confluence with urbanization with its ethic of mobility, and the genteel tradition with its reassertion of puritan values of community. Thus institutionalized, the prescrip- tive notion is carried forward by the school discipline of "English." The Third International controversy and the Black English contro- versy demonstrate the remarkable hold that the correctness doctrine has on our own time. These controversies also give some insight into the means by which the status quo of prescriptivism is maintained within an alien general culture--principally by genteel co-optive devices and by linking the prescriptive linguistic goals with seemingly desirable social and political goals. BEST COPYAVAILABLE PREFACE This study grows out of my teaching and study during recent years in both linguistics and American studies. But my very personal interest in the subject reaches back to my freshman undergraduate days, when as a speaker of a rural southern mountain dialect I was confronted by the cultivated dialect and elaborated code of a central Ohio university community, and suffered the trauma and enjoyed the insights which attended the dynamics of the mutual adjustments between that community and me. I wish to thank all the members of my doctoral committee, and to especially acknowledge gratefully the many contributions, at all stages of my graduate study, of the chairman, Professor Joe Lee Davis. I must also render special acknowledgement of my debt and gratitude to Professor John Eigham, whose teaching and writing illuminated my linguistic data and educational experiences, and whose interpretation of 19th century American history informs this paper. ii AVAILABLE BESTCOPY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION . 110,011 . 900,00011, Chapter I. THE CHALLENGE TO PRESCRIPTIVISM: 1825-1851. 4 II. THE REVIVAL OF PRESCRIPTIVISM: 1851-1875. 17 III. THE PERSISTENCE OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE NOTION: THE 20TH CENTURY .. .... OOOOO ... 34 IV. THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSY 51 V. BLACK ENGLISH AND THE AMERICAN DREAM . 82 115 CONCLUSION . OOOO NOTES.... OOOOOOOOO 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 132 lit AVAlliBLE BET;COPY INTRODUCTION The linguistic thought of Americans has long been marked by a concern for "correctness."Americans have sought in their language to enforce a uniformity and conformity to some absolute standard. This concern derives from 18th century prescriptionist linguistics, which embodied an attempt to control and regulate the language. This regulation was undertaken in accordance with the absolute stan- dard of reason through nature. Since the men of the late 17th century and of the 18th century were steeped in Latin, they thought of it as the "universal" or "natural" language and of its structure as the universal grammar. Consequently, in the mold of Latin grammar was cast by analogy the rules that were to prescribe linguistic behavior for English speakers.1Prescriptive grammar implies above all, ,authority; it also implies order, stability, predictability, and reason. A contrary notion that will play a role in this narrative of ideas is the notion of descriptive linguistics, which concentrates on analyzing language as it currently functions. Descriptivism emphasizes change over stability, diversity over uniformity, usage over authority, and the spoken language over the writtenlanguage. The keystone of correctness is conforailz. Correctness gravi- tates naturally to the camp of prescriptivism. Between correctness and descriptivism is a basic contrariety. The concern for correctness is patently manifest in recent BESTCOPYAVAILABLE American experience. Marckwardt points out that the consequence has been that people have a guilt complex about the language they use, and that " . few Americans, even among the well-educated, are confident and assured of the essential aptness and correctnessof their speech."2 Daniel Boorstin in The Americans has exposed inthe colonial experience of Americans a strong concern for uniformity and correctness and the quest for astandard.3It has been assumed, therefore, that the doctrine of correctness has existed through the American experience essentially unchanled and unchallenged. For example, one scholar concerned with 19th century textbooks has con- cluded that the story of grammar in 18th and 19th century Americais the story of the process by which the prescriptive"dreary grind" of Latin grammar was replaced by the equally futile grind of English grammar,4 that From the very beginning it seems that English grammar was intended to perform for the mother tongue the same functions Latin grammar performed for that language. In each the grammatical study of the language was fundamental . this identity of function is powerfully supported by the striking similarity in content and in methods of study as expounded by textbook makers.) A careful examination of linguistic thought of the 19th century reveals that the virtually universal assumption that the rootsof the 'prescriptive doctrine reach back undisturbed to the 18th centuryis too simple and inaccurate. The prescriptive doctrine met with sig- nificant intellectual challenge in the decades of the20's, 30's and 40's. Moreover, the thought of the decades of the50's, 60's, and 70's was a significant source of theloctrineto pubaequent vigor, inasmuch as there was in these' Jades an increased, conscious drive for linguistic conformity.