May 6, 2025
On many vexed matters of English usage, people can be divided into the following groups:
1. those who neither know nor care
2. those who do not know, but care very much
3. those who know and condemn
4. those who know and approve
5. those who know and distinguish.
Thus with wry wit did H. W. Fowler address the existence of split infinitives in his landmark usage dictionary of 1926. He concluded that the first group ‘are the vast majority, and are a happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes’.
Dangling catkins in the rural west of Ireland
Even more people are happily unaware of dangling or misplaced modifiers. I mean this kind of thing: Cycling downhill, a truck almost hit me. The writer was cycling, but the grammar implies, absurdly, that the truck was. Or: Born in India, Diya’s education took her to Europe. Diya was born in India, but the line says her education was.
As a copy-editor I’m in category 5: I routinely edit danglers to accord with the norms of formal written English. But they’re not always a flagrant error, and they’ve occurred in English since at least Chaucer’s day.
Let’s take a closer look.
Read the rest of this entry »
13 Comments | 
editing, grammar, language, pragmatics, syntax, usage, writing | Tagged: ambiguity, dangling modifiers, descriptivism, editing, English usage, grammar, language, misplaced modifiers, pragmatics, prescriptivism, reading, syntax, usage, writing, writing style | 
Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
April 24, 2025
In the Preface to his landmark Dictionary of 1755, Samuel Johnson wrote that ‘sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride’. Any dictionary, any grammar, is but a snapshot: all living languages change, and they do so constantly and at every level.
Yet there is an instinct in many of us to fix aspects of our language or to nudge it in this or that direction. It’s commonplace to the point of banality to flinch at a pronunciation, spelling, idiom, or other usage. The trick is to acknowledge the subjectivity (and usually futility, and often infelicity) of such a feeling – maybe even to get over it.
The caricature of prescriptivism – the prescribing of norms in language use – is of pedants and purists decrying variation and innovation in language, insisting on style rules they learned in school. But prescriptivism is a broad church. It can make a linguistic variety more consistent, enhancing its communicative reach and facility. Some prescriptivism, contra the conservative stereotype, is progressive, advocating a more inclusive lexicon.
Prescriptivism as a field of study is likewise impressively rich and complex, and this is evidenced in the recent book New Horizons in Prescriptivism Research (2024), whose publisher, Multilingual Matters, kindly sent me a copy. Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, who edited the collection astutely with María E. Rodríguez-Gil and Javier Pérez-Guerra, summarises its approach:
Read the rest of this entry »
5 Comments | book reviews, books, language, linguistics, usage | Tagged: book review, books, Javier Pérez-Guerra, language, language history, linguistic research, linguistics, María E. Rodríguez-Gil, Multilingual Matters, Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, prescriptivism, research, sociolinguistics, usage | Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
January 22, 2025
Myths have serious sticking power. This is true not just of the myths of antiquity but also of more modern and niche types, like the myths of English usage. It seems that nothing will ever stop people peeving pointlessly about split infinitives, double negatives, passive voice, singular they, &c.
One thing that makes usage myths sticky, and spready, is that when we’ve gone to the trouble of learning something, we’re often reluctant to unlearn it, even in the face of contradictory truth – especially when that knowledge gives us a pleasurable feeling of authority or expertise. Renouncing it means accepting that we’ve wasted our time, so instead we double down.
Read the rest of this entry »
11 Comments | books, grammar, humour, language, phrases, usage | Tagged: books, E.B. White, grammar, humour, language, neologisms, peevology, phrases, prescriptivism, The Elements of Style, usage, William Strunk Jr | Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
February 27, 2023
Sometimes what I read tells me what to write about. Other times the hints come from what I watch. This time it’s both. First I read a line in Richard Pryor’s autobiography Pryor Convictions with this mighty stack of intensifying negatives:
Read the rest of this entry »
47 Comments | dialect, grammar, language, language history, linguistics, pragmatics, speech, syntax, usage, writing | Tagged: 000000, 1, 2, ambiguity, descriptivism, dialect, double negatives, ffffff, grammar, language, language history, language myths, linguistics, misnegation, multiple negation, negation, negative concord, Otto Jespersen, politics of language, pragmatics, prescriptivism, Richard Pryor, sociolinguistics, speech, standardized English, syntax, usage, usage myths, writing | Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
September 15, 2022
Introduction and origins
What’s the difference between continual and continuous? There’s a short answer, but it’s misleading, so – surprise! – I’m going with the long and complicated one.
Some people make a firm distinction between the two adjectives, but others don’t or only sometimes do. The distinction has merit, but it’s not categorical, more the codification of a general but lopsided pattern.
Because the words are so close in sense and use, they’re often used interchangeably (the adverbs continually and continuously even more so). This seldom leads to confusion or difficulty, but it’s also true that each word has domains it specializes in and others it’s less suited to.
Both words come from Latin continuus ‘hanging together, uninterrupted’, continual arriving via Old French continuel. Their endings, –al and –ous, are common adjective-forming suffixes. The words’ more recent history sheds light on their use, but first let’s look at how they’re defined, since this reflects how they’re used and gets to the centre of the problem.
Read the rest of this entry »
8 Comments | language, language history, lexicography, usage, words, writing | Tagged: adjectives, adverbs, collocation, confusables, continual, continually, continuous, continuously, descriptivism, etymology, language, language history, lexicography, mnemonic, prescriptivism, semantics, synonyms, usage, words, writing | Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
July 25, 2021
Prescriptivism is an approach to language centred on how it should be used. It contrasts with descriptivism, which is about describing how language is used. Prescriptivism has a bad reputation among linguists and the descriptively minded. I’m in the latter group, but I routinely apply prescriptive rules in my work as a copy-editor. It’s a more nuanced picture than is generally supposed.
I’m selective about the rules I enforce, dismissing the myths that bedevil English usage. I may apply a rule one day and not the next, adjusting to house style or other factors. I also edit texts to make them more inclusive – less ableist and more gender-neutral, for example. That too is prescriptivism, though it’s not usually categorized as such.
When people use language, they’re often influenced or guided by prescriptive advice, instruction, traditions, and norms. That influence, no matter how overt, conscious, or otherwise, must be part of how we describe language and its history. So in some ways descriptivism encompasses prescriptivism, or at least it should.
The complexity and apparent conflicts here derive in large part from the tendency to lump prescriptivism into a single category. I do this myself sometimes, for convenience. But by oversimplifying the nature and aims of prescriptivism, we invite confusion, category errors, and semantic muddles.
So how might we bring this fuzzy picture into better focus? One attractive option is proposed by linguist Anne Curzan in her book Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History (Cambridge University Press, 2014), which seeks to clarify the heterogeneous nature of prescriptivism and to give it its historical due:
Read the rest of this entry »
19 Comments | books, editing, language, linguistics, usage | Tagged: Anne Curzan, books, descriptivism, editing, Fixing English, inclusive language, language, language books, language change, prescriptivism, reading, standardized English, usage | Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
October 6, 2020
I have three new posts up at my column for Macmillan Dictionary Blog:
Grubbing around for etymology digs into the origins and development of grub:
The noun grub has two common senses, but the connection between them is not widely known. It’s used informally to mean ‘food’, and it can also refer to ‘a young insect without wings or legs, like a small worm’ – in other words, a larva. The two grubs are related, etymologically, but not in the way you may be imagining – depending on your diet.
Piqued by peek and peak sorts out these often-confused homophones, offering mnemonics for each:
To peak (v.) means to reach the highest amount, level, or standard. Phrases that use peak include off-peak, peak oil, and peak time. This meaning explains why people sometimes write the eggcorn peak one’s interest instead of pique one’s interest – they may picture that interest peaking. To remember when to use the spelling peak, think of how the capital letter A is like a mountain. Picture the spelling as peAk, if that helps.
Policing grammar on the radio looks at an example of usage-peeving, wherein a journalist who spoke on Irish radio was criticised by one listener for her grammar:
According to Muphry’s Law (yes, that’s how it’s spelt), any complaint about grammar or usage will itself contain an error. Sure enough, the pedant misspells Moore’s name, and his punctuation is a mess. More importantly, he fails to understand that the rules of formal written English are not universal. Different norms apply when you’re having a conversation, for example, and speaking in your own dialect. So those ‘rules’ don’t even apply in most situations.
Grubbing around in the sand in County Mayo,
Leave a Comment » | dialect, etymology, grammar, language, spelling, usage, words, writing | Tagged: dialect, etymology, grammar, grub, homophones, language, Macmillan Dictionary Blog, mnemonic, peak, peek, peeving, pique, prescriptivism, spelling, usage, words, writing | Permalink
Posted by Stan Carey
Sentence first 