海角大神

Reading聽Rosemarie Ostler鈥檚 terrific new book,聽Founding Grammars: How Early America鈥檚 War over Words Shaped Today鈥檚 Language,聽I recalled a聽New York Times聽story from a few years ago about the controversy surrounding a 13-year-old鈥檚 quest to become the youngest person to reach the summit of Mount Everest. In an e-mail to the reporter from base camp, the young climber defended his suitability for the arduous endeavor, adding, 鈥淚 am happy to be doing something big. If I wasn鈥檛 sitting here at base camp, I could be sitting in the classroom learning about dangling participles.鈥�

Heaven forbid! Those of us who care deeply about dangling participles 鈥� not to mention comma splices, sentence fragments, and subject/verb agreement 鈥� must occasionally endure this type of disdain. Of course, the so-called grammar police have no problem dishing out derision, too: Just scroll through the comments section of any grammar-related article or blog post online.

One of the delights of "Founding Grammars"聽is that it provides entertaining historical perspective on these linguistic clashes. In his 1834 autobiography, for instance, Davy Crockett anticipated criticism of his rough-hewn prose by allying himself with the nation鈥檚 first populist president, Andrew Jackson (whose opponent in the elections of 1824 and 1828, John Quincy Adams, called him 鈥渁 barbarian who could not write a sentence of grammar and hardly could spell his own name鈥�). 鈥淚 can only say ... that while critics were learning grammar, and learning to spell, I and [Andrew Jackson] were fighting in the wars,鈥� Crockett declared. 鈥淏ig men have more important matters to attend to than crossing their t鈥檚 and dotting their i鈥檚.鈥� Crockett鈥檚 point is so similar to the young Everest hopeful鈥檚 that it鈥檚 easy to believe Ostler, a linguist and former librarian and the author of several books about language, when she writes, 鈥淭he terms of the grammar debate have changed remarkably little since the late eighteenth century.鈥�

Most early Americans believed that grammar should be taught according to British usage, while a smaller group, whose most passionate advocate was Noah Webster, argued that American speech standards should be based on a natural American idiom. 鈥淎s an independent nation, our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government,鈥� Webster proclaimed. Early in his career he wrote well-received grammar and spelling books, and in 1828 he published his masterwork, the colossal "American Dictionary of the English Language." Ostler notes that the dictionary鈥檚 鈥渋nclusion of 鈥榣ow鈥� words (bamboozle) and Americanisms (presidential,deputize)鈥� scandalized some critics. The dictionary epitomized Webster鈥檚 鈥渂ottom up鈥� approach, presenting the language as it was actually spoken, not as it ought to be.

That divide has remained central. Ostler shows how it has played out over two subsequent centuries, within the pages of the best-known grammar manuals 鈥� by聽Lindley Murray,William Dwight Whitney, and聽Strunk and White, among others 鈥� and in the contentious debates between language purists who insist on adhering to the traditional rules and academic linguists who are more sanguine about the fact that languages constantly evolve.

One notable controversy resulted from the famously neutral entry for the word聽补颈苍鈥檛聽in "Webster鈥檚 Third New International Dictionary"聽in 1961 (the term had been flagged as 鈥渋lliterate鈥� or 鈥渄ialectal鈥� in the previous edition, 27 years earlier). Commentators and editorialists across the country pounced, as if聽Webster鈥檚 Third聽heralded the end of civilization. One of the few reviewers who defended the updated version argued that a dictionary 鈥渄oes not聽make聽language; it records language鈥檚 use.鈥�

Ostler describes these skirmishes in an evenhanded way (and, it goes without saying, with impeccable grammar). But her sympathies clearly lie with those who would tell the language sticklers to chill out. She points out that the ban on sentence-ending prepositions was merely one 18th-century grammar book author鈥檚 style suggestion for written expression, yet somehow it hardened into a sacrosanct rule. Similarly, while split infinitives were condemned by a 19th-century grammar writer as a 鈥渂arbarism of speech,鈥� they hadn鈥檛 raised eyebrows the century before and have begun to gain acceptance in recent years ("Star Trek"鈥檚 鈥渢o boldly go鈥� didn鈥檛 hurt). Webster may have lost many battles 鈥� he was certain聽you was聽would become standard English, and he believed the spelling of聽飞辞尘别苍听should be changed to聽wimmen 鈥� but according to Ostler, he鈥檚 won the war.