The Language Wars: A History of Proper English

by Henry Hitchings

The English language is a battlefield. Since the age of Shakespeare, arguments over correct usage have been acrimonious, and those involved have always really been contesting values - to do with morality, politics and class. THE LANGUAGE WARS examines the present state of the conflict, its history and its future. Above all, it uses the past as a way of illuminating the present. Moving chronologically, the book explores the most persistent issues to do with English and unpacks the history of 'proper' usage. Where did these ideas spring from? Which of today's bugbears and annoyances are actually venerable? Who has been on the front line in the language wars? THE LANGUAGE WARS examines grammar rules, regional accents, swearing, spelling, dictionaries, political correctness, and the role of electronic media in reshaping language. It also takes a look at such niggling concerns as the split infinitive, elocution and text messaging. Peopled with intriguing characters such as Jonathan Swift, H. W. Fowler and George Orwell as well as the more disparate figures of Lewis Carroll, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Lenny Bruce, THE LANGUAGE WARS is an essential volume for anyone interested in the state of the English language today or intrigued about its future.

Genres: Language, Nonfiction, History, Linguistics, Writing, Reference, Cultural

336 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 2011

About the author

Henry Hitchings is the author of The Language Wars, The Secret Life of Words, Who’s Afraid of Jane Austen?, and Defining the World. He has contributed to many newspapers and magazines and is the theater critic for the London Evening Standard.

Reviews

[Cecily · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and accessible exploration of the English language and aspects of usage that people get worked up about. Hitchings approaches the subject from a broad-minded, descriptivist angle (as opposed to traditionalist/prescriptivist) and uses a variety of historical and amusing points to challenge various myths. Too many grammars ignore context in their desire to give rules that always apply.

Debunking Zombie "Rules"

In particular, he wants to debunk restrictive and inaccurate "rules" and embrace the evolving nature of language, without fearing that English is going to the dogs in a handcart!

With the exception of religious observance, language use is perhaps the only form of behaviour where intelligent and educated people unquestioningly defer to ancient authorities. "A language is a transcript of history, not an immutable edifice" and "Novelty is not the same thing as decline". Such fears are often a proxy for wider fears of social decline ("Typically, the celebrants and defenders of proper English are celebrating and defending something else"), coupled with naive arrogance that we can do something about it. "To hanker after the very distant past... denies progress and misunderstands the essential dynamism of language" and "Much of what is now considered pure was once considered barbarous". We tend to notice changes in vocabulary more than changes in grammar, and then fall for the recency illusion (thinking it's new, when actually, it isn't).

Context is All

He is keen to focus on purpose and context: "Language is form, not substance". Change is, to some extent, consensual; Ralph Waldo Emerson explained it as "Language is a city to the building of which every human has bought a stone" and Chomsky listed 5 purposes: transmitting information, establishing relationships, expressing/clarifying thoughts, pursuing knowledge and understanding, exercising the mind creatively, and play.

Hitchings is also keen not to denigrate accents and dialects, pointing out that few people choose theirs and that non standard is not the same as substandard. This raises the question of what accent to teach second language learners? RP is spoken by a minority, but is understood by almost all, so that is understandably the default.

Gender

English nouns don't have a gender, but gender still causes linguistic issues: singular they/their, anyone? Most Brits are happy with those, but many Americans are not. In fact, in 1850, an act of Parliament decreed the use of masculine pronouns in legislation for simplicity. Few would advocate that now but "The inherent problem with political correctness was, and is, that it seeks to extend people's rights while at the same time curbing their freedoms. Instead of fostering respect for variety... it stresses differences... reforming language in the interests of equality is not the same as accomplishing equality."

Plastic Tenses

There is an interesting section on "the plasticity of tenses", i.e. how they are not always used according to their name. For example, "Actor dies" is arguably more tactful than "Actor is dead", and although grammatically present tense, we know that he isn't still dying. "You will insist on criticising my driving" is grammatically future, but describing something that has happened repeatedly in the past. "Hydrogen pops", is grammatically present, but applies across time, to something that always happens. "I am going to the beach tomorrow" uses the present tense to indicate a future event.

Technology

Hitchings also ponders the effects of modern technology. "The selective process of listening is losing ground to hearing... the concept of a private mind is becoming less stable; increasingly we participate in the function of a collective mind, borrowing other people's subjectivity." In a related vein, Naomi Baron identified "the end of anticipation" because we post our news online so often, there is not much to say when we meet up. Being "always on" reduces our opportunity to be reflective.

Other Sources

It has an index and VERY detailed notes and references for each chapter, but there wasn't much that I hadn't come across before in some form or other. I think David Crystal's "The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot, and Left" (review HERE) is probably a better read, though the notes are not quite as detailed.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading it and ended up with a better understanding of some of the issues than I had before.


Miscellaneous points:

* If you can't split infinitives in English because in Latin they are single words and hence unsplittable, neither should you be able to split a nominative in English, such as "a clever girl" and "the broken threads".

* Dryden was passionately against ending with a preposition, partly because of the etymology of "PREposition" and also because he judged the purity of English by how easy it was to translate into Latin and back again. After his epiphany, he revised may of his works to remove terminal prepositions.

* English didn't evolve directly from Latin, so why impose Latin grammar? German would make more sense!

* Language isn't maths: "To expect a natural language to behave like maths is akin to expecting a child to behave like an iPod."

* Using "literally" in a non-literal way has a long and illustrious history, including "The land literally flowed with milk and honey" (“Little Women”) and "He "literally feasted his eyes, in silence, on the culprit" (“Nicholas Nickleby”).

* Using "hopefully" as a sentence adverb is referring to the attitude of the speaker, not the subject; one more reason not to object to it.

* Schizoglossia is anxiety about using language appropriate for the occasion: context is all. Like Charles V who allegedly spoke Italian to women, French to men, Spanish to God and German to his horse!

* Redundancy is everywhere: overhearing 3/10 of the words in a conversation is enough to get the gist.

* Hyphens are used to link AND to separate, yet they are neither spelling nor punctuation - and there is no authority that can define specific rules for their use, it is so variable.

* Spelling: only about 3% of words are genuinely anomalous and 84% are obviously regular. With 40-44 distinct sounds to express in 26 letters (3 of which are redundant: c, q, x), that's not bad, especially as the most common vowel, schwa, doesn't have a letter.

* Spelling reform is only viable if universal, which means it would not reflect the pronunciation of many users; the current system is relatively flexible.

* Johnson's was arguably not the first English dictionary, but its predecessors were more like glossaries of difficult words. He compiled from what he found in books, rather than starting with a word list. That had an inherent bias to words meaning what people used them to mean.

* Johnson started off with the intention of embalming the language but came to realise its necessary mutability.

* The long list of words whose meaning has changed includes ones that have changed from neutrally descriptive to more judgemental: a villain was a simple-minded yokel, beggar was not pejorative, vulgar meant ordinary, rascal was just the lowest social class, ignoble merely the opposite of noble and wretch meant exile.

* Webster's motivation was overtly political, "As an independent nation, our honour requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government. Great Britain should no longer be OUR standard; for the taste of her writers is already corrupted, and her language on the decline".

* "The United States is..." or "The United States are..."? Until the Civil War, "are" was more common, and in 1902 a House of Representatives Commission decreed that the US should be treated as singular in official documents.

* It's easier to mask your religion than your language and pronunciation, e.g. Judges re the origin of "shibboleth".

* A Victorian maxim was "Servants talk about people; gentlefolk discuss things". Perhaps they should have added something about interesting people discussing ideas?

* In the 19th century, the number of English speakers quintoupled from 26m to 126m.

* The number of languages in the world is diminishing, but arguably, the number of Englishes is increasing.

* Prescriptivists often do more PROscribing than PREscribing, with a "belief that the avoidance of mistakes is more important than the achievement of excellence".

* Proscriptivists "hand down their judgements in the name of science, but their message is unscientific and their efforts originate not in the rigour of research and philosophy but in a sense of lief's encroaching chaos and myriad uncertainty".

* Avoiding passives is a popular mantra, but Orwell's oft-cited "Politics and the English Language" (which advises against them) opens with a passive ("It is generally assumed") and one fifth of its sentences are passive. He wasn't making a blanket rule: he was specifically discussing how language can be used to persuade and dissemble, rather than making suggestions for other types of writing.

* Euphemisms are powerful: sometimes innocuous ways of avoiding what we don't want to think about ("going to the bathroom"), but at other times, they are ways of sanitising the truth ("extraordinary rendition", "ethnic cleansing").

* There is a book called "100 Words Almost Everyone Mispronounces", but if almost everyone does so, in what sense are they wrong?

* Beware of the etymological fallacy: if "decimate" still means destroy one tenth, then "candidate" should mean dressed in white, "meticulous" beset by fears and "sycophant" someone who finds figs!

* "Feeling outrage is not the same as being right."

[Mary Ronan Drew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ah the joys of disparaging those who disagree with us about English usage. They seem never to get old. The author of this "History of Proper English," Henry Hitchings, while he tells us repeatedly that he does not take a stand, he's just explaining to us what has happened over the years, is actually quite opinionated. In his opinion there are no valid standards, all standards are artificial (he speaks repeatedly of "bogus" rules), and no one has a right to impose his "standards" on the rest of us. Ebonics, anyone?

On the one hand, this book is so dry I have to keep hand cream by my reading chair. I fell asleep three or four times over the third or fourth page. And if he isn't lively enough in the first few pages to keep even a reader like me awake what can we expect on page 241? On the other hand, there are gems embedded in the sand. I did not know, for instance, that "speakers of Dyirbal in Queensland have traditionally had for all things an everyday word and an alternative one for use in the presence of their mothers-in-law," or that "the Burushaski language spoken in some northern parts of Pakistan distinguishes four genders." (That one threw me a bit. I still haven't worked it out.)

In plugging the value of redundancy, Hitchings contends that "it is the lack of redundancy in mathematics and its teaching that explains why so much maths bewilders so many people." After futzing around for 20 pages he finally defines language. "Language is power." He also says that "'Logic' is often a mask for smugness and jingoism." And that grammatical failings have been associated with moral ones." That last is probably true, but can I trust anything this guy says?

He ticked me off when he stopped his discussion of the validity of using "n't" instead of "not" to lecture America on what he sees as our history of genocide, wars of conquest, imperialism, and I forget what else. (Repetition of these charges tends to do the opposite of convince.) As for the French, Hitchings says that "the main purpose of the Academie Francaise is not to affect the behaviour of French-speakers, but to provide amusement for foreign journalists." Possibly so.

The book is indeed a history of attempts to describe or prescribe grammar and reactions to those attempts and he mostly tells us about the ludicrous mis-statements and frustrated "oughts" and "musts." One grammarian declared in 1762 that "because" was obsolete, and if he's so wrong about that how can he be right to try to standardize spelling and encourage us all to avoid double negatives? There's a name for that illogical assumption but I forget what it is.

I did not know that Joseph Priestly had written a grammar book but as Hitchings implies, why would you listen to a guy who initially called oxygen "dephlogisticated air." Why indeed. He addresses rapidly diverging English English and American English, first mentioned in print in 1663 when it was pointed out that an "ordinary" in America was a tavern whereas in England it was an inn. Things deteriorated from there.

Hitchings is alert for the inconsistencies of people and institutions who/that have taken a position on the descriptive/prescriptive scale. The American Heritage Dictionary, for example, was responsible for untold cases of apoplexy when it came out some years ago with a very lax descriptive edition. If a lot of people use "ain't" then "ain't" is an acceptable word. Here's Hitchings' comment:

". . . it is striking that the editors of The American Heritage Dictionary are responsible for a book with the title 100 Words Almost Everyone Mispronounces. Examples include acumen, chimera and niche. If 'almost everyone' mispronounces them, it follows that almost no one pronounces them 'correctly', so perhaps the supposedly correct pronunciations are close to becoming obsolete."

You will be relieved to know that I pronounce these words correctly.

I cringe when people use "whom" when the correct usage (at least for the moment) is "who." When they use "who" for "whom" I don't really care. I answer the phone, "This is she," which usually gets me a moment of silence. I cling bitterly to the difference between lie and lay and a couple of other lost causes, but on the whole I welcome new words from wherever they come (I would be mute without "download," "delta function," "skoch," and "binary.")

But there IS an argument for retaining small distinctions. When "shall" and "will" are interchangeable, "hopefully" is thrown about recklessly, and almost anything can be described as "awesome," we lose subtlety and are less able to communicate fine distinctions. Unfortunately, there are fewer of us trying to do so all the time.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love books about language (check out my bookshelves). Imaginary languages? Weirdly specific glossaries? Talking bonobos? Delightful foreign idioms? The latest neurolinguistic breakthrough? Dubious folk etymologies? Yet another book about controversies in English usage? Add it to the bedside pile.

So you'd think I would have enjoyed this perfectly decent book by Henry Hitchings, who appears to be a perfectly decent fellow. He has already written two perfectly decent books about the English language - "Defining the World" and "The Secret Life of Words". The first was about the OED; I haven't read the second. He is obviously interested in English, given that he keeps coming back to it. He is thorough and methodical, meticulous in acknowledging the work of others. His sentences are grammatical.

Unfortunately, they are also, for the most part, exceedingly dull. Some authors write about language with a passion that is infectious. This is not Hitchings's way. His preferred style is a kind of restrained reasonableness that would be laudable if only it weren't so terribly dull.

The final six chapters, in which he focuses on the state of modern English, were more lively than the historical material that forms the core of the book. Unfortunately, given the total of 28 chapters, these represented only about 20% of the book. Earlier chapters had titles that titillated ("Bishop Lowth Was a Fool!", "Of Fish-knives and Fist-fucks"), but did not live up to their promise.

I want to give it a third star, but I can't. It's a perfectly decent book, though. The word "plodding" is surely undeserved.

[Andree · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a hard one to rate. It was well-written, definitely. It's probably 3.5 stars. I enjoyed it overall. Some parts were qutie good, some parts were dull and didn't really hold my interest. It wasn't exactly what I was expecting, somehow, but I'm glad I read it. I tend to be interested in discussions of language, but I think I tend to like the details about individual words and trends more than the various philosophical theories about it. Certain things will stick with me.

For example, the contrast between how people generally use the phrase "lowest commont denominator" and the fact that in reality the lowest common denominator of 1/3 and 1/4 is twelve. This is a statement that appeals to many sides of my brain.

Or, the statement that some words tend to go together; for example, you often hear torrential and heavy associated with the word rain, than you hear fat or whirling, and now, as a result, I have become enamored with the phrase whirling rain.

I really want to read 1984 now. I've been meaning to for literally (and yes, I do mean literally) years.

I was highly amused by Mr. Hitchings' discussion of government language and terms, mainly because it is oh so right. And it made me think about the way I use language when I write.

I may have a new favourite simile. In reference to the new "Newspeak" of contemporary language: "It grows like wisteria - hardily, invasively, twistingly, and yet all the while ornamentally." My fondness for this expression is linked to the passive-aggressive feud my parents have been having over the wisteria my father planted in their garden over a decade ago.

To summarize, this book made me think about language, how its used and how I use it, which was no doubt the author's intention. But, unfortunately, it didn't always hold my interest.

[Duff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed both the fine writing and the challenges that come with thinking about the grammar of our own language...often about points that I had not really thought about since "grammar" school. And, I admit honestly, that much of what I use in daily speech/writing is completely inbred and I could not explain why I use various parts of speech. A bit wonky and a good read, if you are interested in the English language and how we got to the current usage. Much surprised at how many of the rules are based in the 19th Century! I had simply assumed that rules of usage were much older. An amazing refresher on the most important tool I have---my first language. There were LOL moments and lots of insight into the nature of language, how language and thought are structured and an wonderful vocabulary. Highly recommend.

[Nicky · Rating 2 out of 5]

In theory, this is a subject I’m really fascinated by. The whole idea of ‘proper English’, all the classism and imperialism and prejudice caught up in it, and the way people’s attitudes to language have developed. However, turns out that either the minutiae of who wrote which grammar/dictionary/book about etiquette and when isn’t that interesting, or Henry Hitchings has a really boring prose style. Or, well, both of those things. I felt like there were a lot of facts, but not much analysis to go with it; some chapters felt like they were just lists of who wrote what about grammar and when.

I was hoping for other stuff about proper English, more about the imperialism — there’s lots of scope for that without even leaving the United Kingdom, with the suppression of the Welsh and Irish languages, and there’s hints about the struggle between US and UK English. Overall, though… if that was addressed, the deadened prose style made me miss it.

It’s still an interesting topic, but this particular book had a soporific effect on me.

[Smellsofbikes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intense, philosophic history of battles over what constitutes proper english: grammar, spelling, dialect, and the implicit (and sometimes explicit) racism, sexism, and power struggles embedded in language. It's packed with amazing little lines: a language is a dialect with an army, most arguments about correct language are actually arguments about power, stuff like that. It's full of historical oddities: when the US was forming, not much more than half the people in the area spoke English; in France as late as 1890, only 1/5 of the people in the country used French as their first language.
It's an amazing book, covering enormous amounts of material. It took ten times longer to read than I expected, because it required so much thinking and research.
I'd give it a six if I could.

[Andrew Fish · Rating 2 out of 5]

Perhaps since the dawn of language there have been debates about what constitutes proper or appropriate language, arguments about how language changes. English, with its apparent loose structure, is perhaps subject to more such debates than other languages.

Hitchings’ book attempts to cover the broad span of this subject and is only partially successful. Chapters are scattergun in their approaches, often divert into different topics, and struggle to hold the interest. Hitchings’ writing may be grammatically sound, but unlike authors such as Lynne Truss (who Hitchings criticises) or David Crystal (whom he cites), it’s not particularly engaging. The title suggests something gripping – the content says otherwise.

[Renee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who knows me knows I love to read about language, English or otherwise, so I really enjoyed this book. The thing I liked most about it is the fact that it puts the grammar Nazis where they belong--in the dusty static they are trying to create. I love that the book is about the fact that even at its very beginnings people were complaining about usage and the creep of foreign words...and it hasn't changed. Language is a living thing and while it is important to understand "proper" usage, some people...no names need to loosen up and live. Enjoy, thrive have some linguistic fun! Great book.

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

For someone who claims to be a descriptivist, he's awfully opinionated.

This is mostly a very interesting book, though slow in spots and some of his tangents reveal more about his own biases than anything else. But this book definitely has its charms. It has lots of fascinating anecdotes, and is well-written, with a fair amount of snark. I was expecting more linguistics, but that didn't come in until the end. It's primarily a social history of English.

This book wasn't what I expected it to be, but, overall, I enjoyed it.

[Ben Doeh]

A wonderful overview of the debates that have shaped our language.

Hitchings matches an Oxford scholar's erudition with a journalist's facility with words. He explains in depth the significant historical discussions about how our language is and should be; he reveals the social and political implications of proscribing and unifying language, and equally the problem of trying to maintain our differences in language usage.

[Andee Marley · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book done make an interesting topic un-interesting.

I have 3 favorite things about this book.
One: The realization that the English language is not very old in relative terms.
Two: In the age of Chaucer we would read "We do say its time to go now" roughly like "Way doe sah its teem to gaw noo".
Three: Grammar snobbery!

I look forward to reading jazzier versions on the subject.

[Savethesemicolon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Had some really interesting historical stuff on language. But a lot of windiness, too. I found myself skipping sections that seemed to be about something other than what I came here for. And I found myself arguing with him a lot.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a history from Chaucer to the present of attempts to define the English language, describing the perennial conflicts between descriptive, prescriptive and proscriptive approaches. Handled thematically, the text is enlivened by amusing anecdotes.

[Monzenn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Easy five stars for me. A better version of The Etymologicon, though technically they are talking about different aspects of the language. Language Wars is equal parts informative, reaction-inducing, and hilarious, as it goes through the history of multiple aspects of the English language. It's my language book of choice at the moment.

[Al Bità · Rating 3 out of 5]

The sub-title of this book is “A History of Proper English” — but anyone who reads it to find out what “proper English” is all about will be sadly disappointed. The author more or less presents his work chronologically in 28 chapters (although he feels free to move temporally backwards and forwards as required within the basic chronological flow) and covers many varied and often delicious titbits along the way, but the message is always the same: there is no such thing as “proper English”: there never was, nor will there ever be. The only thing one can do is simply describe the language at any one time, but on any long-time assessment no real consistency can be found. This is a truism, based on the approach known as descriptivism.

So what about the main title: “The Language Wars”? Here gain the reader will be left a little bemused. It appears that the “wars” referred to relate to the written or recorded affirmations by various individuals that there is such a thing as “proper English” and that variations to that properness, as identified by those individuals, are decried as being inappropriate; they tend to rail against these “variations” and against anyone who uses them. Such individuals usually provide their reasons (whether correct, justified or not) and will offer what they believe to be the correct rules that must be followed. This approach is known as prescriptivism, and the declaration of a state of “war” against variations of any kind comes from prescriptivists.

The most influential prescriptivists would be schoolmasters and their ilk (pedagogical concerns relating to how to teach English, for example — and this relates to all aspects of the language, including spelling, punctuation, speaking, writing, etc. and in some cases this also includes questions of the sexual, moral and political “appropriateness” of certain words and phrases); and any (and all) organisations who are concerned to reflect a certain style to the language, often producing such things as Style Manuals for this purpose (usually this relates more to the written/printed form of the language than the spoken, and these are found mostly in government departments and in publishing houses). Media more reliant on the spoken word (such as Radio and Television) can have their own specialised departments which check and promote the correct pronunciation of words (local as well as foreign) — at least, they used to — but nowadays there appears to be less concern about these matter (and, I would suggest, it is here more than anywhere else that the hackles of prescriptivists are raised in outrageous indignation).

Opinions about language use and usage are open to anyone (including idiots!), and arguing about the niceties of variant usages can be one of the most stimulating of discussions. Such “arguments” are also indicative of a vibrant, adaptive, enriching, and very much “living quality” particularly in regards to the English language. Prescriptivists who declaim the “death” of a language because of these unwanted variations seem to miss the point of what a living language is. At best, such negativity can perhaps be best countered by reference to the old saying: “The king is dead; long live the king!”

Descriptivists, on the other hand, by attacking the claims of prescriptivists through analysis of their past histories (which shows a certain futility in their claims of some kind of absolute truth about the language) and they contribute to the “wars” by attempting to be proscriptive about prescriptivists! Descriptivists, in analysing the history of a language, rightly point out that all languages will vary and adapt over time. They conclude that, strictly speaking, there can be no such absolutist rules (I think that by this they mean to say that the rules themselves are variable). But this is the only message they can communicate. Hitchings ultimately has to concede that descriptivism is the only way to go: but therein lies its Achilles Heel; after some 336 pages of more or less saying the same thing over and over again, the kindest thing one can say is that a certain numbing monotony almost overcomes the message. At the same time, the more interesting parts of the book are precisely those parts which deal with what the prescriptivists have to say, at various times in history, about what they believe is the proper English language!

We end up with a classic paradox: descriptivism points out that prescriptivism is a pointless exercise, since language always changes; by the same token, descriptivism itself is a pointless exercise: why bother being descriptive of something that continually changes?

I can only conclude that, in these “language wars” the dichotomy between Descriptivism and Prescriptivism is an invalid one; and therefore the “wars” between them are ultimately meaningless.

[Joe Huggins]

From World Wide Words (http://www.worldwidewords.org/):
Book Review: The Language Wars
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Hitchings's previous works include a biography of the man he
wrote his PhD thesis on, Dr Samuel Johnson. Here he turns to the
history of disputes about what constitutes good English. To call it
warfare is to seriously overstate matters - nobody has ever manned
a barricade in defence of the right to split an infinitive - but
publishers do like catchpenny titles.

He unpacks the history of proper usage, occasionally diverting to
offer up examples from other languages as mirrors to English. He
shows that complaints about the decline of our language are almost
always illogical, that later generations frequently find the view
of pundits to be either irrelevant or risible and that attempts to
hold back change are futile. He is sympathetic to the view that
there is nothing absolute about grammar; its rules are not laws of
nature but conventional beliefs which are modified through changing
fashion and shifting everyday use.

Debate over meaning and standards isn't peculiar to our times. But
today's prescribers and proscribers may be surprised to learn for
how many centuries the idea of good usage has been debated and how
much standards have varied. As one example, the apostrophe has been
the subject of unending debate since it was first used in English
in 1559 (the next century, John Donne could write "any mans death
diminishes me" without needing it). Writers in the early eighteenth
century used it to mark the plurals of nouns. It wasn't until the
late nineteenth century that usage settled down. Today's mistakes
with it aren't a sudden eruption of ignorance but a continuation of
misunderstandings and differences of opinion that are centuries
old. The author believes the apostrophe is likely to disappear, not
least through a desire for crisper design and less cluttered pages.

The value of individual words has long been debated, often with a
sense that there are good words and bad words. The history of such
objections shows how ill-judged most of them are. Eric Partridge
hated "economic". Fowler objected to "gullible", "antagonise",
"placate" and "transpire". Last century, as they became known
through the talkies and other imports, British writers complained
about Americanisms such as "reliable", "lengthy", "curvaceous",
"hindsight" and "mileage". In 1978, the Lake Superior University
Banned Words unavailingly deprecated "parenting" and "medication".
Conversely, many Words of the Year selections ("pod slurping",
"locavore") show that the usual fate of new words, even fashionable
ones, is obscurity.

We all speak more than one variety of the language. We pitch our
vocabulary and style to suit our hearers, whether those are our
children, our friends, our colleagues or the unseen readership of
public prose. Standard English has the highest prestige, the one
appropriate to formal communication, and the one we need to master
if we're to be taken seriously in that world. But it's useless to
apply the rules of standard English to the informal registers of
conversation or of slang and dialect. Hitchings argues that - in
spite of widespread condemnation - instant messaging, textspeak,
with all its abbreviations, informality and often casual disregard
for the rules of the standard language, doesn't degrade English. He
contents that the people who use it are easily able to distinguish
it from the language needed in an essay or report.

Some parts of The Language Wars will be familiar to anyone who has
read previous works on the evolution of language. But Hitchings
provides a wealth of examples to illustrate his points. He writes
well and is never dull. Even if you're predisposed to disagree with
him, he's worth reading.

[Claire Davidson · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Language Wars, Hitchings provides many great insights about the development of standardized English, and his witty remarks and playful language make the book very enjoyable to read. This is the first book I've read about linguistics that I considered laugh-out-loud funny.

Hitchings covers a lot of territory over only 336 pages, and the flow of his narrative is logical and easy to follow. Sometimes, I felt as though he was reading my mind when the chapters began discussing things I was wondering about, in the order that I wondered about them. Reading this was like having your very knowledgeable-and-funny grandpa sit you down and tell you cool anecdotes that make you understand society more. For this reason, I think it's really great to take it slow and enjoy each chapter.

Oftentimes, when I read books which are written for lay people about scholarly topics, I am wary of how much research went into it and how reliable of a source it is. However, this book was very thoroughly researched and has an extensive bibliography. Hitchings also does a good job of critiquing his sources and pointing out their shortcomings or inconsistencies.

After reading this, I'm curious about Hitchings' actual beliefs. In the book, issues of politics, religion, gender, and race come up quite often (predictably, because it's a book about language, and language is so interconnected with all these social constructs) but Hitchings, as a narrator, remains neutral as Switzerland and avoids inserting his own opinions. On the other hand, his desire not to take sides, but rather to value the merits of different dialects, spellings, and grammar systems equally is refreshing. It's so much better than reading another book where the author is feigning a meltdown over a misplaced apostrophe.

I left this book feeling more aware of punctuation, pronunciations, spellings, and dialect. But more than anything, I came away from this book both wishing everyone would stop fighting about grammar and spelling and just get along, and knowing that that would never happen.

[Norman Crane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book more than I thought I would. Although some of the reviews I read mentioned that the middle chapters were tedious, I didn't find that to be the case at all. Hitchings may go off argument but he never goes off topic, and The Language Wars isn't just a history of the fight for "proper English". It's also a personal essay in which Hitchings shares his opinions about our bastard tongue and comes down on the side of the language liberals rather than the conservatives. That amounts to a lot of words about words, some of which are objective, others delightfully not (although if you disagree with him, perhaps less delightful). Like English, it's a mishmash: of history, grammar, fun trivia, science and observation. Of course it's bloody well written, too. And researched. Indeed, one of the book's great surprises is how many other books and authors I now want to read because Hitchings mentioned them. Is there such a thing as a "gateway read"? All in all, I recommend The Language Wars to anyone who's ever wondered where to place a comma, whether spelling it "colour" or "color" makes more sense, or if using a semi-colon will make you seem like a totally pompous ass. You won't find answers to those problems, but you will gain a greater understanding of why such answers are hard to give and why the grammar pedants are, therefore, very often wrong...

[WIlliam Gerrard · Rating 4 out of 5]

About to embark, in September, on a Translation degree, I thought it a good idea to brush up on my rather lamentable English skills and thoroughly cast myself into the depths of this book. It is a worthy and interesting read in which the history of our language is explored. What gave rise to the way we speak in today's world and what, indeed, will tomorrow's English be? The author introduces a multitude of well-spun anecdotes from the most famous of our English language writers in addition to tales of those people who were, behind-the-scenes, most influential on the evolution of our tongue. I found the contrasts between UK English and international English most enthralling and equally the chapters on dialogue and accent were riveting. It is interesting to note how the future of our language will be shaped not by English English-speakers but by the vast hordes of foreign speakers of English. The language's rise to international prominence means that many of the traditions and histories entailed in the book will be overlooked as we step towards future's embrace. This book may be a bit mundane and high-brow to the average reader. I found it suitably challenging, intellectual and enlightening. A goodread good read.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

Somewhat mistitled, this book contains very little war or conflict at all. While the war in the book's name refers the very civil disagreement between grammatical prescriptivists (truthfully proscriptivists) who lament disintegrating standards in 'correct' English usage and the more liberal descriptivists who study language from a more objective standpoint, measuring standard and nonstandard forms without passing judgment. Yet the book itself is more of a history of prescriptivist sticklers throughout history than a record of any sort of battle between the two groups.

Hitchings does do a good job of pointing out the numerous fallacies of prescriptivism, mainly that it assumes that a frozen snapshot taken at any point in the development of a language in flux can be considered the correct way of doing things and that much of this prescriptive pedantry is based on the illogical imposition of Latin grammar rules on English, a Germanic language.

Overall, the book is well researched and written, full of interesting examples covering hundreds of years in the development of the language despite that fact that it could use a little more war.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I like English. I read style guides. I took a class in college called History of the English Language. I run a training session on Effective Business Writing. I vomit every time I see someone use quotation marks to convey emphasis. I once punched a 5th grader in the neck for using "their" instead of "they're".

This book was too much English for me.

It was full of interesting facts about the history of the language, and more so the history of people complaining about the way other people use the language. It discussed the early attempts to bring things under control, and it discussed the struggle between proscription and descriptivism. It talks about failed attempts at simplification and reinvention. It talked about modern trends in political correctness and the more Orwellian political speak.

I enjoyed some chapters. Some chapters were slogs. There was too much a focus on the UK (of course, I might be biased in my estimation of the importance of American English ;-) ) Overall, I'm glad I read it, but considering I'll remember probably 30%, I wish it was shorter.

I like English. I just don't like 400 pages on English.

[Jonathan Brammer · Rating 4 out of 5]

_The Language Wars_ is a wide-ranging discussion of perceptions of English usage. Hitchings strenuously attempts to mediate between the prescriptivist and descriptivist camps, implying that those who take strong positions are usually proven wrong by history.

I especially appreciate his explanations of how usage "rules" were developed and defended by the high priests of grammar. What we think of as iron-clad grammar rules can often prove a barrier to clarity and understanding;"correct" pronoun antecedent agreement, for example, sometimes leads to confusing sentences. As an English teacher, this will lead me to be less dogmatic and more flexible with my students' writing and speaking. Ultimately, the standards should be:

1. Is your use of language intelligible?
2. Is your use of language the best way to express your ideas?
3. Does your use of language reflect meaningful, complex, higher-order thinking?

[Fulani Fulani · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. It's a history of the often bitter debates about 'proper' English, starting from the point at which the language as we now know it came into existence - perhaps more recently that we might imagine - and reflecting on its use in England, the US, and indeed many other countries and regions where the language is spoken. It's written with humour and verve, including many rather amusing examples and a number of details that even those who think they know the language well will find fresh and interesting. On the whole, the argument is that there is no such thing as 'proper' English - no 'gold standard' against which it can be judged, or perhaps several competing and questionable gold standards. Above all it shows the dynamism of the language, its ability to change and its openness to creative use.

[Christopher Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. It's not a fast or easy read simply because there's so much here to digest...and it's all good. The breadth and scope of Hitchings's research is breathtaking and informs a comprehensive evaluation of the struggles throughout its history that the English language has undergone as innumerable people attempt to codify and standardize its use. There can be few if any corners of this ongoing fight that he doesn't cover, not only with erudition and rich diction but occasional flashes of humour: Chapter 12's title is "Of fish-knives and fist-fucks."

If you are at all interested in the present state of our rich, evocative and ever-changing tongue as it is spoken, written, spelled, and punctuated or in how it evolved from its historical roots, get this book and savour its insights and explanations. And yes, Mr. Hitchings, I DO use split infinitives.

[A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good book. I like to end my sentences with a preposition, so I now feel empowered to know that this was just one guy's idea of proper English. My one minor, but important complaint about the book is the size of the font. I mean, do I actually have to put on reading glasses to get through the book? A small detail, but one that irked me throughout the book. Were they trying to save paper by using a tiny type?

Anyway, interesting stuff. From now on I'm paying no attention to rules on grammar or capitalization or for that matter, spelling. Thank you for the book that freed me up to write as I please.

This book would have gotten 4 stars if the font were bigger - one star subtracted for making me feel old.

[Steve Whiting · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-researched and in-depth look at the evolution (historic and current) of the English language, admirably pragmatic about the not-really-rules of grammar and how fluid and malleable the language is.

I did find that a couple of chapters, where Hitchings went into depth on the development of spelling in history, were a bit turgid - over-long and every time he emerged into the present day he would almost immediately plunge back several hundred years into the past.

Once past that section, the book livened up a lot - the sections dealing mostly with more modern usage (ie 19th century onwards) and particularly with the last century were notably more lively and certainly felt shorter and more to the point.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is what I might call a popular-scholarly book (if that is not improper English!) In other words, it is written for the general reader, but relates a great deal of information from specialists in the subject (as shown by the 27 pages of notes and 26 page Bibliography). It is not a "light" read, but is not "heavy" either - it just requires some concentration and effort to follow all that is being said. It is packed full of history, theory, observation, reflection and insight, and made me reconsider a number of my attitudes "my" language. Recommended to anyone with a genuine interest in the subject.

[Shimon de Valencia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This might not be as slick as 'The story of English'. It does however build well constructed arguments with evidence to make even the most ardent Anglophile question their assumptions as to what makes 'good' Englsh. Never again shall i question the use of the hanging preposition, nor adhere to the southern 'im' prefix as being 'better' than the good old northern 'un'. (Let us resurrect 'unpossible' in the lexicon of pur language once more) A joy to read, and definately makes the reader think about what constitutes 'proper' English. If you thought grammer was 'boring,’ then you have not read this work. And for those of us who love language and books - it does not get better than that.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hitchings studies the history of English in order to free us from its grammatical tyranny. (One theme is that a mistake that almost everyone makes isn't really a mistake anymore, if it ever was.) Yet Hitchings is intolerant of the growing loss of distinction between words, the erosion of vocabulary, and the sloppiness of thought that results. He's British, so there's fun here in dissecting the rebelliousness of the American colonies. He's also particularly fun when describing the history of some favorite obscenities.