Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Grassroots prescriptivism: An analysis of individual speakers’ efforts at maintaining the standard language ideology

  • Morana Lukač
Extract

People engage in discussions on which linguistic items are ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’, ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ on a daily basis. They do so in private conversations, but also publicly by way of telephone calls to radio stations, letters to newspapers and, since the dawn of the participatory internet, on social media platforms, such as blogs, microblogs (i.e. Twitter), forums and Facebook. Conspicuously, however, in linguists’ theoretical models of language standardisation, speakers have traditionally been marginalised as passive followers of the norms established by language authorities. The types of discussions mentioned are viewed as having no impact on actual usage or on what it is that constitutes the standard variety, while standard language norms are, according to such accounts, enforced by language experts, codifiers and ‘model speakers [such as journalists and newsreaders] and authors’ (Ammon, 2015: 65).

Copyright
Corresponding author
References
Hide All
Ammon, U. 2015. ‘On the social forces that determine what is standard in a language – with a look at the norms of non-standard language varieties.’ Bulletin VALS–ASLA, 3, 5367.
The Associated Press. 2013. ‘Top 10 newspapers by circulation: Wall Street Journal leads weekday circulation.’ The Huffington Post, April 30, 2013.
Vriesendorp, H. 2016. ‘The Internet's (New) Usage Problems.’ English Today, 32(3), 1819.
Bednarek, M. 2006. Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. New York and London: Continuum.
Boland, J. E. & Queen, R. 2016. ‘If you're house is still available, send me an email: Personality influences reactions to written errors in email messages.’ Plos One, 11(3). Online at <http://journals.plos.org/> (Accessed July 6, 2017).
Bourdieu, P. 1986. ‘The forms of capital.’ In Richardson, J. (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–56.
Burridge, K. & Severin, A.. 2017. ‘What do “little Aussie Sticklers” value most?’ Paper presented at the conference Value(s) and Language Prescriptivism, Brigham Young University, Utah, 2017.
Cameron, D. 2012. Verbal Hygiene: The Politics of Language (rev. edn.) London & New York: Routledge.
Chapman, D. 2012. ‘You say nucular; I say yourstupid: Popular prescriptivism in the politics of the United States.’ In Percy, C. & Davidson, M. C. (eds), The Languages of Nation: Attitudes and Norms. Bristol, Buffalo and Toronto: Multilingual Matters, pp. 192207.
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language (2nd edn.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curzan, A. 2014. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, W. V. & Ziegler, E. (eds.) 2015. Language Planning and Microlinguistics: From Policy to Interaction and Vice Versa. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gifford, A. 2014. ‘Why I, a 15-year-old grammar pedant, took on Tesco.’ The Guardian, June 19. Online at <https://www.theguardian.com> (Accessed July 6, 2017).
Grey, D. L. & Brown, T. 1970. ‘Letters to the editor: Hazy reflections of public opinion.’ Journalism Quarterly, 47, 450–56.
Hart, R. P. 2001. ‘Citizen discourse and political participation: A survey.’ In Benett, W. L. & Entman, R. M. (eds.), Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 407–32.
Hughes, G. 2010. Political Correctness: A History of Semantics and Culture. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hundt, M. 2009. ‘Normverletzungen und neue Normen.’ In Knopka, M. & Strecker, B. (eds.), Deutsche Gramatik – Regeln, Normen, Sprachgebrauch. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 117–40.
Lukač, M. 2016. ‘Linguistic prescriptivism in letters to the editor.’ Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 37(3), 321–33.
Mair, C. 2006. Twentieth-Century English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayhew, F. 2018. ‘National newspaper print ABCs: Daily Star overtakes Daily Telegraph for first time in over a year + full figures for Jan.’ Press Gazette, February 15. Online at <https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/national-newspaper-print-abcs-daily-star-overtakes-daily-telegraph-for-first-time-in-over-a-year/> (Accessed 3 September 2018).
Milroy, L. 2001. ‘Britain and the United States: Two nations divided by the same language (and different language ideologies).’ Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 10(1), 5689.
Nagle, S. J., Fain, M. A. & Sanders, S. L. 2000. ‘The influence of political correctness on lexical and grammatical change in late-twentieth century English.’ In Kastovsky, D. & Mettinger, A. (eds.), The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257–77.
Plester, B., Wood, C. & Joshi, P. 2009. ‘Exploring the relationship between children's knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes.’ British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145–61.
Reader, B., Stempel, G. & Daniel, D. 2004. ‘Age, wealth and education predict letters to the editor.’ Newspaper Research Journal, 25(4), 5566.
Richardson, J. E. 2007. Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Severin, A. A. 2017. ‘Vigilance or tolerance? Younger speakers’ attitudes to Australian English usage.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 156–81.
Wahl–Jorgensen, K. 2002. ‘The construction of the public in letters to the editor: Deliberative democracy and the idiom of insanity.’ Journalism, 3(2), 183204.
Wood, C., Jackson, E., Hart, L., Plester, B. & Wilde, L. 2011. ‘The effect of text messaging on 9- and 10-year-old children's reading, spelling and phonological processing skills.’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 2836.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

English Today
  • ISSN: 0266-0784
  • EISSN: 1474-0567
  • URL: /core/journals/english-today
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed