Rosemarie Ostler - Founding Grammars: How Early Americas War Over Words Shaped Todays Language

The author and publisher have provided this e-book to you for your personal use only. You may not make this e-book publicly available in any way. Copyright infringement is against the law. If you believe the copy of this e-book you are reading infringes on the authors copyright, please notify the publisher at: us.macmillanusa.com/piracy.

Big thanks go to the following people: my excellent editor at St. Martins, Daniela Rapp, for helping me produce the best book possible; my wonderful agent, Janet Rosen of Sheree Bykofsky Associates, for her support and professional know-how over the years; my critique group, Mary-Kate Mackey, Deanna Larson, Kelly OBrien, and Sophia Bennett, for their enthusiasm and sharp editing skills; and, as always, my husband, Jeff Ostler, for his support and valuable input as I was writing this book.

Whats your pet usage peeve? Do you grind your teeth when someone starts a sentence with hopefully ? Does it drive you crazy when someone says between you and I ? We all have intense feelings about language use, and nearly everyone has a few usage gripes. These can range from the purely grammatical, such as substituting me for I, to spelling errors like writing its instead of its. Weve all been exposed to the standard rules at some time or anotherDont split an infinitive; never end a sentence with a preposition; use whom in objective case; avoid double negatives.

Never mind that these rules are seldom followed and may be impossible to apply consistently. (Try using subject pronouns after every instance of the verb to be. It is I might be okay, but how does It couldnt have been we sound?) Never mind that some of them dont make sense for English. (Infinitives, for example, are already split, since they consist of two words to plus a verb. Theres no reason not to boldly insert an adverb in between.) These well-worn axioms are woven into the culture. Once they get a grip on us, its hard to break free.

Every so often, language scholars will point out the pitfalls of trying to follow arbitrary grammar rules from earlier centuries. Their well-meaning interventions never fail to trigger red-hot outbursts from purists. Blog posts that touch even indirectly on style issues draw huge numbers of angry comments. People whove learned the traditional rules dont want to be told that those rules are confused or dont really matter. A command of the standard grammar rules is one hallmark of a good education and has been for centuries. For many people its more than thatits a sign of civic virtue.

Our fascination with grammar is nothing new. Americans have been passionate about grammar and linguistic style since the earliest days of the republic. The question of which linguistic model the new country should follow was energetically debated in the early United States. On one side were those who still saw England as the source of superior speech habits. Although they could imagine polishing and improving the language, they werent interested in making any radical changes. They preferred to stick with the tried and true, including imported British grammar books.

On the other sidea much smaller groupwere the linguistic freethinkers who wanted to see Americans develop their own speech standards based on their own natural idiom. Famous dictionary author Noah Webster was among the first to champion this side. His alternative grammar writings encouraged Americans to blaze their own linguistic path. Websters challenges to his grammatical enemiesand their furious retortswere the first of those explosive clashes that seem to be an inevitable feature of any grammar discussion.

No matter which side you were on in the late eighteenth century, grammar books were big business. They provided the foundation of a solid education. Children learned how to read and spell from the lists of letters and syllables in the first chapters of the book. Those who were lucky enough to attend school for more than a year or two progressed to more advanced lessons. Older students spent a large part of the school day memorizing parts of speech and usage rules, and meticulously dissecting sentences into their component parts. The carefully chosen readings, either at the back of the book or in a separate volume, were meant to do more than teach language skills. They turned childrens thoughts toward righteous living. Just studying a grammar book was in itself considered a step in the direction of goodness.

Plenty of adults in early America memorized grammar books, too. In the new country, opportunities for self-betterment were greater than ever before, but a command of standard English was a necessary first step. That meant mastering the contents of one of the popular grammar texts. Because they were cheaper and more available than other books, they were an educational lifeline for anyone too poor, too geographically isolated, or too old to take advantage of formal schooling.

Early grammar books are exotic items today. They are filled with antiquated prose, obscure quotations, and elevated passages from long-forgotten volumes. With their ornate typefaces, they are sometimes a struggle to read. Yet in some ways grammar books are oddly familiar. Most of the rules that people think about when they hear the words correct grammar can be found in these books, often with their wording virtually unchanged. The double negatives ruletwo negatives make a positivehas come down to us over the centuries very much as it appeared in 1770s grammar books.

Old-fashioned grammar books held a powerful cultural sway until recent decades. As late as the mid-twentieth century, they were an important part of many peoples education. We used them in the small parochial school that I attended in the 1960s. Like schoolchildren of previous centuries, we worked our way straight through the books, memorizing and reciting everything in our path, including the inspirational poems that the authors inserted to break up the lists of verb forms and usage rules. (Longfellows Excelsior is one example that stands out in my recollection.) By the time we graduated, my classmates and I had the rules down cold. Im guessing that most of us still do.

People these days no longer learn grammar by memorizing a book. Few schoolchildren study grammar as a distinct subject, and in any case, rote memorization as a teaching tool has gone out of style. The books still matter though. Their rulesand their point of viewcontinue to color how we think about language. Ask anyone for a grammar rule and the odds are that youll be told not to end a sentence with a preposition or split an infinitive. Grammar advice, both in print and online, remains a booming business. Many people still believe that being able to hit all the grammar marks reveals something positive about their intelligence, social class, and character. Even if we realize that speech styles change over time, we cant help feeling jarred when writers or our conversational partners violate familiar shibboleths, such as saying like when it should be as or using I instead of me after a preposition.

The terms of the grammar debate have changed remarkably little since the late eighteenth century. There are some signs, however, that the gulf between the two sides may be narrowing. One is the more flexible attitude of many style advisors toward common usages. Another is the increased number of linguists and other language professionals writing about usage in terms that nonspecialists can follow. Whichever side of the debate youre on, understanding how we got to this place is sure to give you a better appreciation of your own and other peoples approach to language use.