The Grammarians And Their Influence On The English Language

The Grammarians were a prescriptivist movement of people who believed they had the best interests of the English Language at heart. There was an approximated total of 57 men and women (mostly men as a result of the gender biases that existed at the time) who set about trying to standardise the language. It was about this time that the industrial revolution was beginning to take effect, so language was becoming an even more important part of life as it was needed in the workplace. People from the time peroid were using different spellings for words, different phonetic pronounciations etc so it was often ambiguous as to whether two different people were refering to the same thing. For example, some people used the spelling 'ageing' wheras others used 'aging'. They also wanted the English Language to hold the same status as that of Greek and Latin.

The standardisation of the language was first triggered by 'The Pamphlet Of Grammar' by William Bullokar, written with the seeming goal of demonstrating that English was quite as rule-bound as Latin. Bullokar's grammar was faithfully modeled on William Lily's Latin grammar, Rudimenta Grammatices (1534). Lily's grammar was being used in schools in England at that time, having been 'prescribed' for them in 1542 by Henry VIII. These interlinking efforts contunued right through to more modern forms of standardisation. They implimented the use of dictionaries to create standardised meanings and spellings of words that people could refer to if ever there was any queries relating to words.

They clearly succeeded in their efforts as today English is an internationally well respected language that is spoken in most professional environments.

Child Language Acquisition

In their early years, children’s mouths are not fully developed and are unable to form the majority sounds as a result. This is due to the fact that the larynx is in a raised position; in order to allow the baby to breathe whilst suckling on the mother’s breast. It also significantly reduces the likelihood of choking as the larynx is pushing on the throat, thus reducing it’s diameter and the likelihood of allowing solid objects through. As the child ages, the larynx will drop by 3cm and the full vocal range will become available. The child will have to learn how to use its vocal chords to make the sounds necessary for speech. This is something that, as adults, we take for granted but is a very complex task. It takes 30 muscles operating in a specific way to produce a single sound.

As the child enters the toddler stage, they are learning a staggering 10 words every day. They will also gain the concept of self-awareness. They start to use the words ‘I’, ‘me’, and ‘my’ to refer to themselves. This is a very complex abstract concept to grasp for children and one that most other animals never will. Communication is often a lot easier at this stage as the child automatically knows how to construct sentences with proper grammar as they have picked up the proper methodology from those around them. However, they are not completely immune to making errors. One more common example of an error made by children at this stage is over-generalisation. This is where a child will apply what they believe to be a grammatical rule (such as pluralising by adding an ’s’) but they do not realise that there are exceptions to these rules like the word ‘mouse’; an irregular verb that in its plural form is mice. Gleason devised a test to prove this phenomena called ‘The Wug Test’. During the test, children were first shown a picture of a made up creature which they were told was a ‘Wug’. They were then shown a picture of two of these creatures and indirectly asked to complete the sentence “There are two …”. Every child would answer the same; “Wugs”, thus proving this theory.

18th Century Text Analysis

Link to text: http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/texts/cook/1700s2/1700s2.html

This text, from the 18^th century, is an informative text aimed at housemaids. It clearly outlines the method that should be used to remove insects from the house. As such, the text generally consists of complex sentences, polysyllabic words and an overall high register. Throughout the text, there are examples of archaic language and terminology such as ‘Earthen-pan’ (a large pot made of earth/clay) and ‘mixt’ (the past tense of mix). There are also language features that are a characteristic of the time such as the fact that all nouns are capitalised and the use of the archaic ‘s’ throughout the text. There are some other examples of words used to describe objects from the time, that would not be used today such as ‘Chaffindish’ (an upper class serving dish), ‘Brimstone’ (used to start fires as it burns better than charcoal) and ‘boiling Lee’ (a substance used for cleaning).

There are examples throughout this text that, today, would be considered grammatically incorrect. Some such examples include ‘Don't open the door under six hours’ (don't open the door until six hours have passed), ‘Shut your door close’ (close your door), ‘it will take away your breath’ (it will take your breath away) and ‘it will be well’ (it would be beneficial). In these examples, the words used in the modern day equivalents are generally present but in a different order. There are other examples of where the spellings of words have changed. Examples such as ‘effectual’ (effective), ‘buggs’ (bugs), ‘mixt’ (mixed) and ‘finis’ (finish).

Interestingly, there are also some more complex examples of language change that have occurred. The first example is of semantic shift. This is where a word has changed in meaning. The word ‘about’ has gone through this process from meaning around (an area) to mean a preposition indicating an estimation or a subject matter. The word ‘anoint’ has gone through the process of narrowing. It was used in the text to mean ‘wipe clean’ but now it has changed in meaning to smear/rub and is more commonly used regarding a religious ceremony. These points highlights the language change that has occurred over the course of 250 years.


Graphologically, the text utilises a clear typeface with italic writing used for the title of each paragraph. After the title there is always a bold first letter and the rest of the word is capitalised. This is a characteristic of texts from this time and is sometimes still found in books today. All the nouns throughout the text are also capitalised (which today would be considered incorrect as we would only capitalise proper nouns and the starts of sentences).

‘Broken Homes’ Article Analysis

Marie Woolf (the editor of this article) has written about a key comment made by Ian Duncan-Smith that highlights the fact that children from so called ‘dysfunctional families’ are at a distinctly greater risk of being both mentally and physically underdeveloped by the time they start school. His claims can not be disregarded, as there is sound evidence from scientific studies to back up his claims. He has put it down to a lack of growth during a ‘critical period’ of development, in which, a child must be exposed to the necessary amount of stimuli (such as exposure to words, touch and social interaction) to permit full development of cognitive capabilities expected from a child of that age group. This is also why, he says, when it comes to starting their formal education (at age 4) “their brain is probably at the age of a child of one but being asked now to comprehend and make decisions at that of the level of a child of three and four”. The clear lack of language and social skills can easily be linked to the child’s upbringing and thus, their families. It is commonplace to find parents “failing to bond with their babies” in the most basic of ways such as reading or even merely speaking to them. In the more extreme cases, children that frequently witness violent and angry scenes at home, tend to exhibit such behaviour when at school. From then on, he predicted a downward spiral, ultimately leading to becoming “drug addicts, criminals or alcoholics”.

However, Katherine Rake accused Mr Duncan-Smith of making generalisations about people from ‘poor backgrounds’; saying “It is critical not to confuse family dysfunction with family type.” I agree with her to an extent because every family has their own ways of ‘nurturing’ a child. Cultural differences see the greatest variation in what is believed to be good nurturing practices. For example, in the collectivist culture of Japan, it would not be uncommon to find a four year old child with their older, but not yet teenage siblings, taking the subway to run an errand for their mother. Whereas in the individualist culture here in the UK, such a sight would never occur. I only agree with her to an extent however, because these stereotypes do exist for a reason. They merely highlight the blatant recurrence in the link between a families dysfunctionality and their child’s mental and physical underdevelopment.

Persuasive Article - Analysis

Why Superlatives are the absolute worst (unless you're Donald Trump)

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/apr/15/why-superlatives-are-the-absolute-worst-unless-youre-donald-trump

A couple of months ago I wrote a piece for this blog titled “How to write the shortest joke in the world”. It was meant to be a diversionary lunchbreak read, breezy of subject and light in tone. I had certainly not set out to offend anyone. But despite these intentions, my blogpost riled the comedian Andrew Lawrence enough for him to use his Facebook page to describe it as “genuinely the worst article I have ever read, about anything, ever, in my life”.

Now, Lawrence’s criticism didn’t sting me all that keenly. It wasn’t specific enough to induce paroxysmal self-doubt. (Was it my predilection for baroque verbiage, Andrew? Or the clumsiness of my peroration? Perhaps you felt threatened by having the cogs and levers of your craft exposed? Give me something concrete to worry about!) Nor does a glance at Lawrence’s Twitter feed – a litany of sham provocateur brave-enough-to-say-what-you-won’t schtick – suggest that he passes the arbitrary probity threshold I use to decide whether I should care about other people’s opinions. No, what was most disappointing was that Lawrence resorted to an extremely cheap trick from the rhetorical playbook: the superlative.

The objective of most proffered opinion ‒ whether in op-ed thinkpieces, blogs or social media status updates ‒ is for the author to bring the reader round to their point of view. In person, charisma, eloquence and forcefulness may provide able surrogates for a truly persuasive argument; politicians supply evidence of this almost every day. But written arguments require true rhetorical skill. You need to give the sense that you’ve given due consideration to the competing cases. You need to appear sober and detached enough to provide independent analysis. And you need to demonstrate that you have the experience, decency and sagacity for your reader to trust your verdict. Only then can you build up the authority to deliver your discerning judgment.

Using the blunt trauma of a superlative as part of an argument is a rhetorical own goal. It’s cheap (consider a kebab shop that describes itself as BEST KEBAB SHOP), it makes you look solipsistic and dogmatic, and ultimately it crushes your credibility as a trustworthy arbiter (Kanye West: “I’m the greatest rock star in the world!”).

In 1950, the then editor of the Manchester Guardian, AP Wadsworth, added a decree to the paper’s stylebook that recognised this: “Superlatives must be used very sparingly, in every sense. We do not wish to give the impression that we live in a constant state of excitement.” But the pressure to generate clicks through headline exaggeration has nevertheless led to the proliferation of superlatives across the media. X is bad therefore it is labelled the worst. Y is good therefore it is branded the best. Examples I’ve culled from the thousands of internet comment pieces churned out every week include: “Are millennials the worst generation ever?” “Is this the best vacuum cleaner ever?” “This is the worst government ever.” This last example is a particularly persistent trope whose historical illiteracy has been lampooned by an excellent Al Murray routine.

Donald Trump is very fond of superlatives, living as he does in a constant state of excitement. During his vituperative campaign, he has described Hillary Clinton as “the worst secretary of state in the history of the United States”, exalted himself as “the most militaristic person ever”, and claimed that he would become “the greatest jobs president that God ever created”.

It’s because of Trump’s rise that I felt compelled to respond to Lawrence’s comment. Because it’s hyperbolic observations like his that have helped create the hysterical environment for the likes of the Republican rabble-rouser to flourish. All of Trump’s outlandish claims in the above paragraph are nauseating tosh: CNN discovered that his commitment to the military was so strong that he deferred from the Vietnam war five times. But somehow, the grandstanding language he uses has not actually proved all that emetic. Rather, because he’s using the titillating vernacular of the internet, his oration is at once recognisable and reassuringly familiar. Trump is therefore able to brush off scrutiny, simplify debates and seed the internet with vine-able one-liner put-downs and unverifiable claims because the digital soil has been tilled for him.

There’s something unpleasant about the modern human condition, that we love to ridicule the worst and idolise the best. We are rarely engaged enough to describe things as they really are, which is somewhere in the middle. But it is the duty of commentators and public figures to resist these urges. It’s their responsibility to peer into the messy and complex world of art and life and sport and politics – things that are normally quite good or quite bad, rarely the very best or the very worst – and use the finepoint vocabulary at their disposal to fairly describe the object at hand, before passing judgment. Not to resort to lurid superlatives. To do so is an invitation to idiocrats.

Analysis

This article is in response to a Facebook post by a comedian who has mocked an article previously produced by the writer. The writer cleverly uses the purpose of writing the article to both argue that superlatives are overused, and as an excuse to retaliate against the comedian. He does both of these effectively by using a number of language features.

The discourse structure of the article is very clear and logical; after some brief contextual information, the writer constructs a very clear, logical and structured argument that, as a result, is very hard to dispute. He does so by identifying what the problem is (the overuse of superlatives), giving a 'formula' that the media adhere to that ensures its overuse, giving examples from recent media pieces and then explaining why it is a problem. This is helped by the clear, structured paragraphing. 

The syntax resembles that of a high register piece of writing; with long, complex sentence structures. The text is also littered with complex, (generally) polysyllabic words that probably have latinate origins - highlighted in orange. 

The writer also uses facts and figures (see grey highlighting) to show he has knowledge on the subject.

All of these features help to suggest that the writer is well informed on the subject and thus his views should be taken as the correct ones. Interestingly, in the paragraph highlighted yellow, the writer gives a detailed description of the components that make up a persuasive piece of writing. This further affirms the readers trust in the writers knowledge and ultimately his credibility as a source.

When the writer concludes, he clearly states that 'humans' use superlatives too often and refers to them as 'we' as he does so. He also says that 'commentators and public figures' have a 'duty' to use them sparingly and refers to them using a separate personal pronoun; 'they'. By doing so, the writer is trying to distance and almost dehumanise the 'commentators and public figures' (a category that includes the comedian).

The writer also uses a neologism to describe Donald Trump's one-liners (see pink highlighting) where he refers to them as 'vine-able'.

Occupational Lexis - Pilot

Occupational Lexis - Pilot

Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaF42uFa0cw

Transcript Example

ATIS - Opa Locka tower information romeo. Time one three

five three zulu weather. Wind calm (.) visibility one half (.) fog. Vertical visibility two hundred (.) temperature one seven (.) dew point one seven (.) altimeter two niner niner five. Advise on initial contact (.) you have information romeo.

Pilot - Good morning Opa Locka ground (.) november eight five one tango bravo over at Landmark with quebec (.) looking to pick up our IFR

ATC - November eight five one tango bravo Opa Locka ground (.) cleared to papa delta kilo airport via the Miami five departure (.) headily transition as filed. Maintain two thousand (.) expect flight level three zero zero (.) one zero minutes after departure (1) departure frequency one one niner point four five (.) squak one three (.) six seven

Pilot - Cleared up to Peachtree DeKalb err (.) Miami five headily transition as filed maintain two thousand three zero zero ten minutes after that nineteen forty five on the departure frequency and one three six seven in the box for eight five one tango bravo

ATC - Eight five one tango bravo (.) read back is correct

Pilot - Ground november eight five one tango bravo we’re gonna be approaching spot three with romeo right taxi

ATC - One tango bravo runway niner left taxi via november six november

Pilot - November six november to nine left (.) eight five one tango bravo

ATC - One tango bravo remain on this frequency for coordination and you said you had romeo

Pilot - We have romeo and we’ll remain with you (.) eight five one tango bravo

ATC - One tango bravo (.) the tops are reported at two hundred

Pilot - Roger (.) thank you

From this transcript it is clear to see that there are many different examples of jargon used in a pilot’s discourse.

The main interaction that occurs is obviously between the pilot and the air traffic controller. However, before the aircraft can begin taxiing, the pilot must first listen to the ATIS (Automatic Terminal Information System). This is an automated report of all of the important information that the pilot might need before takeoff regarding the particular airport.

There are no written forms of communication involved in this occupation; only spoken discourse. Due to the fact that it is more common for there to be miscommunication through spoken discourse, and that it would obviously be dangerous if there were any miscommunication between the pilot and air traffic controller; both utilise the ‘NATO phonetic alphabet’ (see image to the right). This adds more syllables to the letters in order to reduce the likelihood of miscommunication.

It is customary for all air traffic controllers to address each pilot by their particular ‘call sign’ (a unique series of numbers and/or letters specifically linked to their aircraft). The pilot is also required to end their reply with the call sign, so as to confirm they have received the transmission.

There are examples of jargon throughout the transcript; examples include ‘coordination’, ‘the tops’, ‘altimeter’ etc. There is also a number of examples where there is clearly a shared knowledge between the pilot and the air traffic controller. For example, ATC says “cleared to papa delta kilo airport”. The pilot is supposed to interpret these from the NATO phonetic alphabet to mean ‘PDK’ airport. He is also supposed to know that this is the airport code for ‘Peachtree-DeKalb Airport’. More commonly known airport codes include ‘LAX - Los Angeles International’ and ‘LHR - London Heathrow’. He also goes on to say “via the Miami five departure”. Again he is expected to know that he is referring to a pre planned departure route.

Self Evaluation

Self Evaluation

The weakest area of my essay was AO1 for the reason that I did not incorporate a sufficient amount language levels and terminology into my essay. In order to rectify this I will try to give more examples in future essays. This way I can analyse these examples linguistically and progress up the mark scheme as a result. I also failed to guide the reader through my essay. I will try to plan future essays in order to prevent this failure.

The stronger side to my essay was AO2. I did provide knowledge of theorists and gave my opinions on the conclusions they drew from their research, however, I feel that I still could have incorporated more examples into my essay. I was also able to include my own research into the essay which the examiner appreciated.