English 1C

The War Rages On

A grammar war might not seem quite as adventurous as a war involving actual violence and bloodshed, but it still has a meaningful and controversial impact on society. A decision must be made in terms of how our language will be structured; should we have rules to control usage, or should we let the people decide individually how they would like to speak and write? Both sides of this issue have their advantages, but the real problem to be considered is how to have one nationally recognized language that still leaves room for change. I submit that the only way for Americans to educate and understand one another is to have written rules about usage, albeit rules that can be changed over time; in this way I am what David Foster Wallace calls a Prescriptivist.

Every day words, phrases, and grammar rules are being badly mangled and misused by the general public. The difference between affect and effect, for example, is constantly misinterpreted. Affect is a verb meaning to have an effect on, and effect is normally a noun meaning the actual effect you have on something. As Garner puts it, "To affect something is to have an effect on it" (24). Effect can also be a verb, meaning to make happen. This distinction is fairly simple, yet it is misused consistently. Confusing these two words can completely change the meaning of a sentence, such as "'Mr. Nir's briefing must have had some affect [read effect] on Mr. Bush...'" (Garner 24). Although most likely written by someone of considerable education and intelligence, the one grammatical error in this sentence makes the entire statement seem lazily and thoughtlessly written.

Even more confusing than the misuse of affect and effect is that of dissemble and disassemble. Dissemble means to keep something a secret, or to represent something falsely, while disassemble means to take something apart. A sentence incorrectly using these two words can be disastrous, such as, "'Rushakoff said that he had to spend a lot of money learning how to use the right tools and the right procedures to dissemble [read disassemble] computers'" (Garner 215). Replacing disassemble with dissemble makes this sentence completely ridiculous because obviously you can't keep something a secret from a computer.

While these kinds of grammar blunders are considered by many to be confusing and illogical, Descriptivists argue they are natural products of discourse communities. While it is true that groups of people that spend considerable time together tend to pick up their own jargon and slang, this cannot be accepted as a form of professional communication. Wallace states that, "...Descriptivists contend, it's the Scientific Method-clinically objective, value neutral, based on direct observation and demonstrable hypothesis-that should determine both the content of dictionaries and the standards of 'correct' English" (11). This stance is impossible to see through however, because to place into the dictionary common language from every discourse community would be impossible, and doing so would make the English language as a whole a meaningless concept. If no grammar rules prevail in a language, then there is no nationally recognized form of speaking and writing, and no higher level of intellect or education evident in speech or literature. Obviously determining level of intelligence through speech and thought can never be done on an objective scale, but society in general can have certain standards for what it deems appropriate in writing and formal speech, which is the reason for a firm grammatical system. One way to show intelligence is putting in the effort to make sure that your speech and writing contains correct grammar and usage, and is therefore coming from a person who cares about language.

However, language obviously is not a constant variable, unchanging over time. Many commonly used words today have drastically different meanings than what the words are now considered to mean. The word guy, for instance, according to the OED, originally meant an effigy of Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes was the man who protested ant-Catholic laws by burying about twenty barrels of gunpowder in the House of Parliament. The figures holding a likeness to Guy Fawkes were themselves called guys. The definition changed to mean a person dressed badly, and then changed again to a slang term meaning lantern. The noun then became a verb meaning to run off, and eventually became the noun, meaning man, which is the common use today.
There are thousands of other words such as guy which have gone through astounding semantic changes. The word muse, for instance, according to the OED, was initially the noun mythol, with Greek and Dorican roots. Mythol was the name for the group of nine goddesses in Greek mythology. The word then changed to the noun muse, meaning the inspiration of poetry or song. It then changed to include the definition of a muse as represented in sculpture, and a more rare definition of a woman who embodies a muse. The word then changed, from a verb into a noun. The verb to muse means to be in a state of abstraction, to be perplexed or uncertain, to wonder. Later French scholars referred to a muse as a bagpipe, or as a verbal noun, to play music. The Arab version of this verb actually means a plantain or banana. The most common definition of the term today is to bewilder or puzzle, although it can still refer to inspiration for an artist. However, it no longer refers at all to the initial definition, which is the nine Greek Gods.
These semantic changes support the argument of Descriptivists, which is that language is constantly changing, therefore placing restrictions on it is a fruitless exercise. While I think that restrictions in language are both useful and necessary, I do agree that meanings and usage are flexible ideas because everything changes over time. If the English language had never changed, American citizens would still be speaking Old English. The fact that modern day English sounds like a completely different language than what was spoken in the time of William Shakespeare is telling as to the very nature of semantic change. While Old English and the English we speak today are connected in their beginnings, the differences between them are unbelievable. Understanding Old English is almost as difficult as understanding an entirely different language, and a few hundred years from now people will probably be saying the same thing about the English we speak today. This is the beauty of language; it is a constantly changing entity that can be regulated, but can never be completely controlled.

This is the main reason why errors in usage continue, because it is impossible to control the flow of language among communities. The most that can be done is to educate the largest amount of people possible as to proper grammar and word use, and hope that they understand the importance of the correct use of the English language. Yet mistakes and misunderstandings in grammar will continuously be a problem, as is evident in today's society. People will always use words incorrectly, such as the common mistake of mixing up incredible and incredulous. Incredible means unbelievable, and incredulous means to be unbelieving. While these words are similar in meaning, their intended uses are completely different. A sentence like, ""[T]he delays that were tolerated by the Canadian justice system are absolutely incredulous [read incredible]"" (Garner 366) can make an otherwise intelligent person seem moronic and uneducated.

Although Descriptivist are correct in stating that language is constantly changing and therefore must be flexible, they are incorrect in the assumption that this makes regulations on grammar and usage superfluous. How a person speaks and writes reflects something about who they are, whether that is objectionable to some or not. In groups of friends more casual language is acceptable, but in any kind of professional or even semi-professional setting, a person has to be able to show a certain level of intellect which cannot be seen if their speech is littered with common grammatical errors. Nothing can make a person seem more uneducated than the misuse of a simple word or phrase.

Descriptivists and Prescriptivists are currently at two different sides of a raging grammar war which, for the moment, seems to have no predictable conclusion. The issues in this war affect American society and every day life drastically, because language is a cornerstone of our culture. How and if language should or will be regulated is rarely discussed in our society, but it does affect every single person in the nation. Whether or not you are involved in the academic world, patterns of speech will impact your life. The difference between speaking to friends and speaking to a business associate, how to write a letter or an essay, how to understand both entertainment
television and the news, all of these are important issues in modern day America, and these are the exact issues that Descriptivists and Prescriptivists are currently battling over. While Descriptivists argue for a language with no rules or restrictions, Prescriptivists take the opposite stance and argue for distinctive rules governing all use of language. I believe that the English language should be regulated because the use of language reflects on us as individuals and as a nation, but at the same time I think that regulations should be flexible because language is always changing.