Download Paper - chass.utoronto

Giuliana Russo
“REVOLUTIONARY” AND “PRESCRIPTIVE”: WILLIAM COBBETT’S A GRAMMAR
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1818).
No doubt remains in my mind, that there was more talent discovered and more political knowledge by the leaders
amongst the Reformers,
than have ever been shown, at any period of time, by the Members of the two houses of parliament (sic!).
There was only one thing in which any of you were deficient,
and that was in the mere art of so arranging the words in your Resolutions and Petitions
as to make these compositions what is called grammatically correct.
(William Cobbett, The Political Register, 28 November 1817)
William Cobbett wrote A Grammar of the English Language, which was published in New York
on July 17th 1818. It quickly sold out as did a second London edition of 5000 copies which followed
in December. In 1819 two further London editions appeared, and by 1822 combined sales in
England and in America came to 50.000 copies which eventually became 100.000 by 1834.
Numerous editions were issued throughout the second half of the century, the most recent in 1923.
Despite the impressive sales figures and Cobbett’s fame, his Grammar has received little scholarly
attention.
In 1986 Salmon complained that «no one has yet provided a detailed appreciation of its value as a
linguistic monument of the nineteenth century»1 but her claim has been only partially fulfilled so
far: 1994 by Aarts who mostly concentrated on its genesis 2 and in 1998 by Mugglestone who
focused her attention on the comparison between Cobbett’s Grammar and a revised edition of it by
Cobbett’s son James Paul to whom the Grammar had been addressed3. Apart from that, it has only
V. SALMON, William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English Language […]to which are added Six Lessons. Ed. by
Burchfield, R., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1984,«Notes and Queries», CCCXXXI,1986.
2
F.G.A.M. AARTS, William Cobbett: Grammar of the English Language, «Neuphilologische Mitteilungen», 95, 1994,
pp.319-332.
3
L. MUGGLESTONE, Cobbett’s Grammar: William, James Paul and the politics of prescriptivism, «The Review of
English Studies NS», 48, 192,1997, pp.47-88.
1
been sketched briefly in works on the history of the English language or language teaching 4 and
hardly dealt with in general works on Cobbett’s life and political doctrine5.
The neglect of Cobbett’s grammar, in fact, is part of a twofold scholarly neglect: that of
nineteenth century English of which, as Gorlach complained two years ago in the introduction to his
monumental work on the subject, «no comprehensive description has ever been attempted»6, and
that related to grammars whose authors have for a number of reasons (religious beliefs, political
attitude, sex, geographical origin ) been left outside the mainstream of 'polite' British society.
Thus, a thorough study of a nineteenth century grammar such as Cobbett’s is needed because it is
likely to give important insights in the process of language standardisation, in a period in which
«the sociolinguistic foundations of PDE were laid […] when the population expanded
tremendously, especially in the industrial urban centres […], and when general education began to
level speech forms to an extent that is impossible to imagine for earlier periods»7.
As Smith noted
The non- refined and politically concerned reading audience was created by an increase in the
number of readers during a time of considerable political conflict. It was the advent of this
audience which challenged the concept of the vulgar language prompting a reconsideration of
assumptions about language that justified class division.8
The aim of the present paper is to show the outcomes of an analysis of Cobbett’s A
Grammar of the English Language9 both at the linguistic and stylistic level in order to assess its role
in the spreading of a written norm from the refined upper classes of the 18th century to a larger part
of the English population of the Victorian Age and uncovering the politics of language or ideology
of standardisation, which generated it. In addition, I’ll challenge the dogma that a prescriptive
attitude to grammar implies a reactionary political creed: this came out as a “side-effect” of my
analysis.
4
Cf. N. F. BLAKE, A History of the English Language, London, MacMillan, 1996; D. FREEBORN, From Old English
to Standard English, London ,MacMillan, 1992; A. P. R. HOWATT, , A History of English Language Teaching,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1984; G. LEITNER, English traditional grammars in the Nineteenth century in
D. KASTOWSKY - A. SZWEDEK (eds.), Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, Berlin, New
York, Amsterdam, Mouton de Gruyter, 1986; I. MICHAEL, The Teaching of English from the Sixteenth Century to
1870, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987. PYLES & ALGEO, The Origins and development of the English
Language, London, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993 4 .
5
Cf. F.G.A.M. AARTS, William Cobbett: radical, reactionary and poor man’s grammarian, «Neophilologus», 70,
603-614; , G. D. H. COLE, The Life of William Cobbett, London, Home & Van Thal, 1947; L. NATTRASS, William
Cobbett. The Politics of Style, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995; J.V. OSBORNE, William Cobbett, New
Brunswick- New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1966; J. SAMBROOK, William Cobbett, London and Boston,
Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1973; G. SPATER, William Cobbett. The Poor Man’s Friend, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1982; R. WILLIAMS, Cobbett, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983.
6
M. GORLACH, English in Nineteenth century England. An Introduction, Cambridge, CUP, 1999, p.1.
7
Ibidem.
8
O. SMITH, op. cit, p.23.
9
The edition I have used in this study is: C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), William Cobbett: A
Grammar of the English Language (the 1818 New York first edition with passages added in 1819, 1823, 1828),
Amsterdam, Rodopi, 1983.
I will first give an account of the stylistic features of the grammar which I had already done in
detail in a previous study basing it on the framework devised by Linn 10. Then a section of this
paper will be devoted to a qualitative linguistic analysis of the contents. This will be done by
confronting descriptions of linguistic phenomena given in the grammar with the correspondent
forms attested in that period and surveyed by Gorlach, one of the most reliable sources on 19 th
century Standard English at present for wealth and quality of the collected materials 11.
From the very beginning the Grammar reveals itself a problematic and ambivalent work in
that although Cobbett seems to allow for innovation, this either turns out to be a device to convey
prescriptions or it is contrasted and superseded by traditional features altogether. This can be
immediately evinced from the stylistic choices he made in matters of title, dedication, structure,
naming of the grammatical categories involved, attitude towards varieties detectable by his labelling
of ungrammatical patterns and his use of modals and exemplification.12
In the title Cobbett makes the traditional statement that the grammar was intended «for the
Use of the Schools and of Young Persons in general»13 but coherent with his radical ideology and
political creed and comforted by his autobiographical experience of a self-made-man he
immediately after discloses his real intentions saying that he had intended his grammar «…more
especially for the Use of Soldiers, Sailors, Apprentices, and Plough-boys»14. He himself had
benefited from learning Lowth’s Grammar to progress in his political career and social status15.
Now he wanted to pass his knowledge of standard English on to the working classes in order to
enable them to use it as a tool in class warfare. His revolutionary intent cannot be ignored when he
uses a traditional element in the structure of a grammar, the dedicatory epistle, in a remarkably
unconventional way. Instead of addressing it to an illustrious and influential person usually from
aristocracy, as a ‘captatio benevolentiae’ act, as was customary at that time, he chooses to address it
to a Mr Benbow, «shoe-maker, of Manchester»16 whose radical views had caused him to be
imprisoned after the government suspended the Habeas Corpus.
Cf. G. RUSSO, A stylistic analysis of Lindley Murray’s and William Cobbett’s English Grammars: Prescriptive
grammars as text types, in G. DI MARTINO-M. LIMA (eds.), English Diachronic Pragmatics, Napoli, CUEN, 2000,
pp283-297.
11
M. GORLACH, op. cit..
10
12
13
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p. 24.
Ibidem.
15
testimonianza
16
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p. 25. In a second edition of the Grammar he changed his
mind and addressed it to Queen Caroline (1767-1821). In our opinion, however Cobbett’s choice cannot be regarded as
real shift in attitude towards political power. Queen Caroline, in fact, had become a public heroine when she claimed
her rightful position as queen, despite her unpopular husband George IV had tried unsuccessfully to divorce her.
14
The macrostructure of the grammar also adds to unconventionality. Cobbett wrote it «in a
series of Letters»17 addressed to his son James Paul, thus creating a confidential tone to involve his
model readers in a more user-friendly text.18 Once again, however, originality in structure is
counterbalanced by the traditional twofold partition of the grammar in Etymology and Syntax.
He dismisses Orthography as being «neither more nor less than the very humble business of putting
letters together properly so that they shall form words»19 and Prosody as «neither more nor less than
what is expressed by the more common word Pronunciation» and a «matter which ought not to
occupy much of your attention, because pronunciation is learnt as birds learn to chirp and sing». 20
Here again what would seem a manifest departure from the prescriptive tradition and a liberal
attitude toward differences in accent, which was already considered a marker of class distinction, is
in fact due to what Stein has identified as a
constituent part of the ideology of standardisation, that is, the focus on written language as the
paragon of language generally. This is related to the fact that most of the high functions are carried
out in the written medium.21
Cobbett’s disregard for the spoken variety and his interest in the written language is apparent from
the very beginning when he declares that «In short it is sense and not sound which is the object of
our pursuit» and that «Tyranny has no enemy as formidable as the pen». 22
Attitude towards variation is also shown in his use of right-wrong, correct-uncorrect dichotomy for
his labelling of ‘ungrammatical patterns’23 and the high occurrence of modals like must expressing
necessity when he prescribes what can be done and what is to be avoided in writing.24
As concerns the grammar meta-language, it reveals a strong adherence to the traditional
Latin-based system of naming in Etymology, Syntax, and Part of Speech in clear contradiction with
Cobbett’s manifest aversion for the ‘learned languages’25.
One single exception is probably constituted by the naming of modal verbs which he calls Signs.
17
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p.33.
Cf. ibidem: ««have put my work in a series of letters , in order that I might be continually reminded, that I was
addressing myself to persons who needed to be spoken to with great clearness». For a full account on Cobbett’s
unconventional choice see G.RUSSO, op. cit. , p. 285.
19
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p.34.
20
Ivi, p.35.
21
D. STEIN, op. cit., p.5.
22
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p.35.
23
There occur in the Grammar some instances of expressions denoting ungrammaticality based on the idea of
‘violation’ and also a few examples of pronouncements on ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ usage, but considerably prevailing is
the practice of labelling ungrammatical patterns with stronger expressions such as «wrong», «fault», «error»,
«mistake», «bad».
24
See G.RUSSO, op. cit., p289.
25
He had declared that ‘learned education’ was «worse than useless» (Political Register, 1807). It is worth noting in
passing that although he was against the what he called «Learned Languages» he devoted a section of the Etymology of
Nouns to The cases called the Saxon genitive «possessive case». Cf. C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (edd.),
op. cit., p.47.
18
Exemplification in the grammar would deserve a whole study in that it is a mine of
information both on Cobbett’s political ideology and on his way of conceiving education and
teaching. There occur two types of examples: 1. The customary Examples of false grammar, usually
excerpts from famous authors’ works which he introduces to point at common faults in the use of
language so to demonstrate that learned men are not exempt from errors only because of their social
status26; 2. ‘neutral examples’, that is, examples he made up to illustrate grammar rules and not to
show any common faults, which always contain an explicit political message so to reach his
readers’ mind without using any traditional political genre such as the pamphlet. Indeed a quite
unorthodox practice at that time27.
It can be affirmed in conclusion that despite its apparently innovative features, the style
reveals Cobbett’s generalised adherence to tradition and a clear prescriptive attitude (see TABLE
1). In our opinion these are both signs of his intention of spreading the standard to lower classes of
learners. To do so he had to convey a fixed system of rules so as not to puzzle his readers and at the
same time try to attract them and involve them in a clear text.
As regards the linguistic data, this study will consist in seeing how major problem areas of
nineteenth century English, as singled out by Gorlach28, are tackled by Cobbett to test whether he
records innovations or persists in classical 18th century descriptions and prescriptions on language.
In the inflectional morphology area, one of the major problems was the genitive marker after stemfinal s. Although a generalised use of ‘s (as in Dickens’s) appears to be the rule29, Cobbett
considering proper nouns in the same way of plurals suggests to add only the elision mark: «When
plural nouns end with s you must not add an s to form the possessive case but put the elision mark
only after the s»30.
Adjectives had long before lost their inflection apart from comparative and superlative
forms. Here the matter was still unsettled on whether the synthetic or the analytic way was
preferable. The rules were quite complex and often disregarded but usually a certain degree of
variation was allowed and everything seemed to depend on cacophony31. Cobbett himself seems to
allow for variation when he says that «All adjectives which admit of comparison may form their
26
According to MICHAEL, that practice had been first applied to the teaching of syntax by Ann Fisher in 1750. Cf.
I.MICHAEL, English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800, Cambridge, CUP, 1970.
27
147 out of 183 examples in the whole Syntax section, are ‘made up’ sentences, while 33 are quotations from
illustrious people and authors such as Judge Blackstone, Tull, Bishop Lowth, Hume, Blair, Addison, Abercrombie,
Milton, Johnson, Murray and The House of Lords. He also mentions Bacon’s, Bolinbroke’s and Swift’s works as being
«full of misuses and faults» but he does not include any example from them within the text.
28
M. GORLACH, op. cit..
29
Ivi, p.65.
30
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (edd.), op. cit., p.46.
31
M. GORLACH, op. cit., pp.65-66.
degrees by the use of the words more and most as rich richer /more rich, richest/ most rich», but
immediately after he adds
When the positive contains but one syllable, the degrees are usually formed by adding to the
positive according to the four rules [adding –er or -r ]. When the positive contains two syllables, it
is a matter of taste which method you shall use in forming the degrees. The ear is in this case the
best guide. But when the positive contains more than two syllables the degrees must be formed by
the use of more and most.”32
As far as personal pronouns are concerned Cobbett lists the second person singular thou for
the nominative case, thee for the object case, ye nominative and you objective for the second
person plural. This is, he says, how it should be, but
Common custom has set aside the rules of grammar in this case and though we in particular cases,
still make use of thou and thee we generally make use of you instead of either of them. According
to ancient rule and custom this is not correct; but what a whole people adopts and universally
practices, must in such cases be deemed correct, and to be a superseding of ancient rule and
custom.33
An 18th century unsolved problem related to personal pronouns which 19th century grammarians
inherited, regarded the choice of the correct case in sentences like « It is me/I»; or after prepositions
as in «between you and me/I». Prescriptive grammarians thought subject case was required by
logic whereas the position would suggest object case.34 Cobbett who dealt with this topic in his
section on Syntax as related to pronouns warns his readers to «Take care in using personal
pronouns, not to employ the objective case where you ought to employ the nominative»35. He goes
on to explain that in «It was some of those who came hither last night and went away this morning
who did the mischief, and not my brother and me It ought to be my brother and I» or in «Who
broke the glass? It was me. It ought to be I»36. Again «after the words than and as this error of
putting the objective for the nominative is very frequently committed as: John was very rich but
Peter was richer than him[…] it ought to be richer than he»37.
As regards the inflection of who he lists whom as its object case specifying that it has to
have a human antecedent. He then warns his readers against improper use in rule 199 of Syntax:
«The errors which are most frequent in the use of relative pronouns arise from not taking care to use
who and whom when they are respectively demanded by verbs or prepositions». 38 While on which
with human antecedent he comments:
32
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p.56
It is worth noting here that he always addresses his son with you in the letters constituting the grammar probably for
the confidential tone which naturally establishes among relations.
34
M. GORLACH, op. cit., pp.66-7134 It is worth noting here that he always addresses his son with you in the letters
constituting the grammar probably for the confidential tone which naturally establishes among relations.
33
35
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p 93.
Ibidem.
37
Ibidem.
38
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p. 51.
36
This application of the relative which with solely irrational creatures is, however, of modern date
for in the Lord’s Prayer in the English Church service, we say Our Father which art in Heaven. In
the American Liturgy this error has been corrected and they say Our Father who art in Heaven.39
Cobbett here sees the Anglican church as a repository of archaism and shows diachronic awareness.
We come now to the far more complex topic of verbs. As Gorlach pointed out «variation
was still more conspicuous in verbal inflection»40 and the verb group was gaining more and more
weight in the 19th century. Cobbett’s particular concern with the English verb both in his section on
Etymology and in that on Syntax reflects the growing development of the verb phrase during this
period.
After distinguishing verbs in «active, passive and neuter» he passes on to consider «person, number
time[tense] and mode[mood] »41. One of the usual apparent inconsistencies arises when he explains
that «There are three persons but our verbs have no variation in their spelling except for the third
person singular»42 but later on, displaying the full conjugation of the verb to work, he includes
«Thou workes» as the second person singular probably in accordance with his previous inflection
of personal pronouns. He thus comments on the third person singular ending –eth: «This spelling
has long been disused»43.
Since the correct form of irregular tense formation remained a problem, following a
customary convention of his time Cobbett provides a list of irregular verbs, but unlike his
contemporaries he stands out for his liberal attitude and does not include in it verbs like burn,
burst, deal. They, he claims, are not properly irregular but regular verbs which «our bad practice of
abbreviating or shortening»44 has led unaware grammarians to consider irregular, while «the only
real irregulars are those in the first list»45.
As to tense, Cobbett open-mindedly explains that
In the Latin language the verbs change their endings as to include in the verbs themselves what we
express by our auxiliary verb to have. And they have […]different endings as are required to
express all those circumstances of time that we express by work, worked shall work, may work,
might work, have worked, had worked, shall have worked, may have worked, might have worked;
and so on
adding that English «verbs never vary their endings, to express time except the single variation from
the present to the past. […] In our compound times there is the verb to have which becomes had , or
shall have, and so on». 46
39
Ivi, p.52
M. GORLACH, op. cit., p. 67.
41
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit. p. 56-60.
42
Ibidem.
43
Ibidem.
44
Ivi, p.67.
45
Ibidem.
46
Ivi, pp. 116-118.
40
Gorlach has noticed that «the distinction between simple past and present perfect permitted less
room for personal choice and to be finally disappeared as a perfect auxiliary where it had been
dominant with verbs of motion».47 Cobbett in this case seems very modern in that he does not
allow for variation suggesting the verb to have as the only possible alternative to form what he calls
compound times. What is more, he appears to be well aware of the different shade of meaning
conveyed by the verb to be used instead of have as an auxiliary to make compound time and this is
the example he provides: « He found that the Countess was gone out of the house. That is to say
was absent out of the house, and this is nonsense. It must in this case be he found the Countess had
gone out of the house»48. As regards the double use of have to express unrealised action he thus
commented on sentences like I should have liked to have been informed of the amount of the
Exchequer Bills, still quite common at that time : «A phraseology like this can be becoming only in
those Houses, where it was proposed to relieve the distresses of the nation by setting the labourers
to dig holes one day and fill them up the next»49. Incidentally, the fact that this structure is used as a
marker of lower class speech in Dickens’s Mrs Saunders in Pickwick Papers (1837) confirms
Cobbett’s concern to avoid substandard varieties.50
Modal verbs are quickly dismissed by Cobbett as follows : «The signs may, might, can,
could, will, would shall should and must have all originally been verbs though they have now
become defective in almost all their parts, and serve only as signs to other verbs. »51. And later on in
Syntax. «I need not dwell here on the uses of will, shall, may, might, should, would can, could, and
must which uses various as they are as well known to us all as the uses of our teeth and our noses;
»52. As regards shall and will as future tense markers, a legacy of 18th century grammarians
prescribed shall for first person and will with the rest. Cobbett, probably influenced by the
American practice, stands out for his progressive attitude and though listing both shall and will in
the full conjugation of the verb work , he always addresses his son in the grammar using will for
first person singular, thus «I will now proceed to close this long and important Letter….»53.
Finally there comes the problem of the double negative, one of the most favourite targets of
18th century grammarians’ prescriptions and no more accepted in standard English. In this case
again Cobbett follows the prescriptive tradition and does not allow for alternatives. This is what he
explains in a section specifically devoted to what he considers a major fault «In our language two
47
M. GORLACH, op.cit., p. 81.
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit. p.116.
49
Ivi, p. 118.
50
M. GORLACH, op. cit., p. 81
51
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit. p. 72.
52
Ivi, p. 118
53
Ivi, p. 60.
48
negatives applied to the same verb or to the same words of any sort amount to an affirmative.[…]
Errors, as to this matter, occur most frequently…»54.
To conclude, the analysis of the linguistic data uncovered the same tension prescriptioninnovation that has been noticed in his style. (see TABLE 2)
Cobbett’s ambivalent attitude can be accounted for in relation to eighteenth century theories on
language and mind, on prescription and standardisation
55
and in particular to what Gramsci has
called «hegemony of language»56, that is the conscious use of language by the ruling classes to
foster class division. Cobbett, as a radical, perfectly understood that the division between those
who knew grammar and could write properly and those who did not was one of the most subtle
means of class manipulation and set his task of writing a grammar which could challenge this trend.
Thus, although the linguistic and stylistic analysis reveal indisputable elements of a strongly
prescriptive attitude and a marked influence of the authoritative eighteenth century tradition in his
work, these are indispensable to give the «plough boys», the «soldiers» and the «sailors» a text
enabling them to participate in the political life of their country. It had to be a means to assert their
rights, a reliable source of learning allowing them access to the «gateway to liberty»57. As Aarts
(1994) rightly pointed out «Cobbett was not a theoretical grammarian, interested in philosophical
inquiry[…], he was a pragmatist who used his Grammar as a means to achieve his political
goals»58. Thus what seems inconsistency actually it is not59.
What emerges is Cobbett’s profound awareness of the social and political connotation of nonstandard varieties in a period in which petitions to Parliament were rejected because of their
«indecent and disrespectful» language60. As Smith pointed out
Radicals had the difficult task of not only justifying the capabilities of the disenfranchised but also
of redefining the nature of language. Cobbett’s grammar emerges out of this radical tradition and
his complex relation to it. Although Cobbett implies that his is a single mind opposing a monolithic
54
Ivi, pp. 141- 142.
Cf. H. AARSLEFF, The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press,
1983; S. LEONARD, The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800, New York , Russell & Russell Inc.,
1962; J. MILROY – L. MILROY, Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation,
London and New York, Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1991; P. S. RAY, Language Standardisation. Studies in Prescriptive
Linguistics, The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1963.
56
O. SMITH, op. cit. p. 31.
57
Cobbett (Polititcal Register 6 December, 1817) thus commented on this topic:«I have gone into detail as to this
anecdote in order to show what power a knowledge of grammar gives to man. […] and every young man who shall
read what I am now writing may be assured, that he can never arrive at fame; that he can never obtain and retain any
great degree of influence over the minds of other men, unless he be possessed of this branch of knowledge, which […]is
the key to all the means of communicating our thoughts to others […]. It is very true that all men are not born with the
same degree of capacity for acquiring knowledge. But nature has been too fair to give all the capacity to the
Aristocracy». D. FREEEBORN, op. cit., p. 402.
58
F.G.A.M. AARTS, Grammar, cit., p.330.
59
Cf. L. NATTRASS, op. cit., p. «»
60
D. FREEBORN, op. cit., p.399
55
tradition, the grammar was an original contribution to a group of recent works that were aware of
the political implications of language theory. 61
This awareness and his arguments in favour of the Standard seem even more remarkable if
considered in the light of the recent debate on whether standard English should be regarded as the
most effective and democratic means of access to culture or as an elitist, class-based,
authoritatively-imposed variety not worth teaching in school. Significantly one of the contestants,
John Honey, considers Cobbett’s life and work as an example of «the magical world of the mind
which could be opened up by standard English» in his highly controversial book Language is
Power. The Story of Standard English and its Enemies (1997)62. In it is assumed that the crusade of
a ‘liberal orthodoxy’, against standard English in favour of a more democratic multitude of
regional dialects, far from effectively protect the underprivileged, has curiously limited their access
to power, causing an irreparable social and educational damage to them. As a consequence, in his
opinion, English grammar must be prescriptive because descriptive grammars only puzzle students
and are of no use to them.
Although, in Bex’s words , «it is not at all clear that Honey sees empowerment in quite the same
way»63 as Cobbett and despite the fact that almost two centuries have passed since William
Cobbett wrote his Grammar, his call for the necessity of acquiring grammar for
A motive which, though it ought at all times to be strongly felt, ought at the present time to be felt
in an extraordinary degree: I mean that desire which every man, especially every young man,
should entertain to be able to assert with effects the rights and liberties of his country 64.
sounds strikingly modern and raises interesting questions as to the relationship between standard
and non-standard varieties. Furthermore, it induces the linguists to reconsider the conflict between
prescriptive and descriptive attitude to language
61
O. SMITH, op. cit., p.
J. HONEY, Language is Power. The Story of Standard English and its Enemies, London and Boston, Faber &
Faber,1997.
63
T. BEX, John Honey: Language is Power: The Story of Standard English and its Enemies, Faber & Faber, London.
«Applied Linguistics», 19, 3, 407-10.
64
C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit, p. 32.
62
TABLE 1:  Style
Traditional/prescriptive
features
Title
The grammar was intended “for “…but more especially for the
the Use of the Schools and of
Use of Soldiers, Sailors,
Young Persons in general”.
Apprentices, and Plough-boys”
Its presence in the Grammar
Dedicated to a Shoe-maker
Dedicatory Epistle
Structure
Innovative features
imprisoned for sedition.
Twofold partition in Etimology Epistolary form.
and Syntax.
Naming
Latin-based naming of the main Aversion for the so
called
Sections of the Grammar, of “Learned
“This
languages”:
Parts of Speech and of most of word nominative is not a good
the
categories
describing word. [It] has been taken from
Latin”
linguistic data.
Attitude towards variation:
He is prescriptive as regards the He is liberal as regards
written medium.
pronunciation.
-Labelling of ungrammatical
Right/wrong dichotomy. Use of
patterns
terms
like
error,
mistake,
corruption.
Prevalence of must
- use of modals
False grammar to point at Politically “loaded” examples to
Exemplification
common
faults
made
by illustrate rules
illustrious people.
TABLE 2:  Linguistic data
Noun Phrase
Adjective
Traditional/prescriptive
features
Genitive marker after stemfinal –s. He suggests to add
only the elision mark after
plurals and proper nouns.
Innovative features
“When the positive contains
more than two syllables the
degree must be formed by the
use of more and most”
Apparently he allows for
variation (“all adjectives may be
formed by the use of more and
most”)
Pronouns (pers.): morphology He gives the rule :
thou/thee for 2nd pers. sing.
Ye/you for 2nd .pers. plur.
-(pers.): syntax
Subject case in sentences like
“It is me/I” or “…..between you
He comments on it:” custom
has set aside the rules”.
Incidentally he addesses his son
with You in the grammar.
and me/I”
Verb phrase:
-Person
-Conjugation
He gives thou workest as the 2nd He affirms that there is no
p.sing.
variation except for 3rd p. sing
He includes a list of irregular
verbs in the grammar.
He stigmatises double have to
express unrealised action.
-Tense
Double negative
He does not consider verbs like
burn, burst, deal as properly
irregulars.
-He seems aware of Latin
synthetic way of forming tenses
versus the English analytic one.
-Use of have in present perfect
-Shall or will indifferently to
form future tense
Not allowed: “error”.
REFERENCES
Primary Sources
Nickerson, C., C. and J. W Osborne (eds.), 1983, William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English
Language (the 1818 New York first edition with passages added in 1819, 1823, 1828), Rodopi,
Amsterdam.
Secondary Sources
Aarsleff, H., 1983, The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860, University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis.
Aarts, F.G.A.M., 1986, “William Cobbett: radical, reactionary and poor man’s grammarian”,
Neophilologus, 70, 603-614.
Aarts, F.G.A.M., 1994, “William Cobbett: Grammar of the English Language”, Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen, 95, 319-332.
Bex, T. 1999, “John Honey: Language is Power: The Story of Standard English and its Enemies,
Faber & Faber, London.” Applied Linguistics, 19, 3, 407-10.
Blake, N. F., 1996, A History of the English Language, Macmillan, London.
Cole, G. D. H., 1947 The Life of William Cobbett, Home & van Thal, London.
Freeborn, D., 1992, From Old English to Standard English, MacMillan, London.
Gorlach, M. 1999, English in Nineteenth century England. An Introduction, CUP, Cambridge
Honey, J., 1997, Language is Power. The Story of Standard English and its Enemies, Faber &
Faber, London and Boston.
Howatt, A. P. R. , 1984, A History of English Language Teaching, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Leitner, G., 1986, “English traditional grammars in the nineteenth century” in Kastowsky , D. and
A. Szwedek (eds.) Linguistics across Historical and Geographical
Boundaries, Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam .
Leonard, S., 1962, The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800, Russell & Russel
Inc., New York.
Linn, A.R.
Michael, I., 1987, The Teaching of English from the Sixteenth Century to 1870, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Milroy , J. and Milroy, L., 1991, Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and
Standardisation, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London and New York.
Mugglestone L., 1997 “Cobbett’s Grammar: William, James Paul and the politics of
prescriptivism”, The Review of English Studies NS, 48, 192:47-88.
Nattrass, L., 1995, William Cobbett. The Politics of Style, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ray, P. S., 1963, Language Standardisation. Studies in Prescriptive Linguistics, Mouton & Co.,
The Hague.
Salmon, V., 1985, William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English Language (the 1818 New York first
edition with passages added in 1819, 1820, 1828). Ed. by Nickerson, C., C. and J. W Osborne 1983,
Rodopi, Amsterdam.
Salmon, V., 1986, William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English Language […]to which are added
Six Lessons.. Ed. by Burchfield, R., 1984, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sambrook, J., 1973, William Cobbett, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London and Boston
Smith, O., 1984, The Politics of Language 1791-1819, Clarendon Press, Oxford
Spater, G., 1982, William Cobbett. The Poor Man’s Friend, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Vallins, G. H., 1954, “Cobbett’s Grammar”, English, X, 56, 48-53.
Williams, R., 1983, Cobbett, Oxford University Press, Oxford.