The Lexicographer's Dilemma: The Evolution of 'Proper' English, from Shakespeare to South Park

by Jack Lynch

In its long history, the English language has had many lawmakers-those who have tried to regulate or otherwise organize the way we speak. The Lexicographer's Dilemma poses a pair of questions-what does proper English mean, and who gets to say what's right? Our ideas of correct or proper English have a history, and today's debates over the state of the language-whether about Ebonics in schools, the unique use of language in a South Park episode, or split infinitives in the Times -make sense only in historical context. As historian Jack Lynch has discovered, every rule has a human history, and the characters who populate his narrative are as interesting for their obsessions as for their erudition. Charting the evolution of English with wit and intelligence, he provides a rich historical perspective that makes us appreciate a new the hard-won standards we now enjoy.

Genres: Language, Nonfiction, History, Linguistics, Writing, Books About Books, Words

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Lolly's Library · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening, enjoyable, entertaining. One might expect the first adjective, but certainly not the other two when describing a book on the subjects of linguistics and lexicography. However, I believe that this book will not only appeal to those familiar with these subjects, but also to those taking their first foray into the territory. This isn't some fusty old textbook, laying out the history of the English language, invasion to invasion, scribe to Gutenberg. Instead, it's a jolly romp through the trials and travails of those intimately involved with the attempt to categorize, curtail, and clean up our messy, confusing English language; from the curmudgeonly to confused, from shy to boastful, from historically famous to those left behind as mere footnotes. The biggest selling point is the fact that modern contributors to English aren't ignored, glossed over, or treated as a pox upon our "noble" language. Many familiar names are referenced alongside (or, more accurately, right after) the more sedate, historical personages such as Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster: George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Quentin Tarantino--those who, in their own colorful, creative, and ofttimes controversial way, continue to shape what we know as "good" English and "bad" English. And, yes, that includes South Park. The phenomenon brought about by the Internet Age--blogging, texting, tweeting--all those activities supported by a vast multitude of unnamed persons who support these endeavors with their own shorthand versions of English, also earns a place in the lineage of our language.

Upon reading this book, I realized something very important: Nothing is new. From the dawn of language itself, people have been bemoaning its demise. Every generation worries that the one coming up behind them is going to hell in a handbasket... and taking the English language with it. I admit, I'm a language prude. I wince at text-speak, I rave madly when someone uses a word or phrase incorrectly, at least, incorrectly to my thinking; I try not to leave participles dangling or split my infinitives. The lesson of this book, however, is that English is a mutable language. It can be used, or abused, in the most extreme fashion, yet it will always bounce back and remain steady, if not always comprehensible to the elder generation. So, the lesson I've learned is that I, and all others who bemoan the imminent demise of English, should just chillax (a slang word I would have never deemed worth using before this point). I can't say I'll ever go out of my way to use split infinitives, dangling participles, or double (or triple or even quadruple) negatives. However, knowing that all of these grammatical "errors" have pedigreed pasts, going back to Shakespeare and Chaucer (who appears to be a master of the quadruple negative), I won't feel as though I'm committing a capital offense if one happens to slip into my writing or conversation. Even the dreaded ain't has a place in this world. English has the near-miraculous ability to be combined in almost infinite ways to create new words. Those words may only be one-offs, created as literary puns or linguistic exercises; they may end up as dictionary staples. The point is, English is flexible and fun. We can rail against its quirks, its bizarre spellings which don't match pronunciations, or, conversely, too many spellings which match a single pronunciation, but without its inherent freedom of expression, we would be lost without it.

[Igor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Читабельна книжечка про "правильну" англійську мову і як за цю правильність боролися (здебільшого безуспішно) з 17 століття до наших днів. Тут тема розкривається в дуже різних аспектах - є розділ про ідею Академії англійської мови, розділ про американську англійську, про словник Семюела Джонсона, про матюки, про інтернет і глобалізацію, і так далі. Очікувано багато дістається консерваторам, які століттями "захищають мову, якою розмовляв вищий клас у попередньому поколінні". Однак в суперечці "дескриптивізм проти прескриптивізму" (тобто, що важливіше - вивчати мову "як нею говорять реальні люди" чи навчати "правильній мові") автор знаходить добрі слова і для прескриптивізму в його обмеженій версії.

Багато спільного з книжкою Word by Word: там трохи вужчий фокус, хоча цікавіші історії "з життя".

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Audio interview with the author available here.

A good reminder for those of us in the English teaching racket that our awesome pedagogical skills and overwhelming personal charisma are employed in the advancement of an arbitrary set of rules which assembled themselves more or less by accident. That might depress some people, but I find it strangely cheering and liberating.

Chapter 10, about the scandalized mutterings generated by the 1961 release of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, was especially informative and entertaining. I remember reading one story featuring the fictional detective, Nero Wolfe, taking a break from his orchid-raising to rip pages out of this dictionary and throw them into a fire. By the time I read the story, the reason for this behavior had faded into obscurity. Read this for all the gory details.

[Andres · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a recovering English major I still have a weakness for language histories and this book sure does hit the language history spot. While not a language history per se, it does trace the history of the ever evolving debate about what is considered proper or improper in the English language. As much a history as a biography, Lynch hits all the big language personalities and topics, from Johnson working on his dictionary up to modern day dictionary wars between Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary, the stories and fights between the two sides of "proper" language use (the prescriptivists vs the descriptivists), and plenty more.

[N.T. Embeast · Rating 5 out of 5]

So what is this book about? For its fancy appearance and title, its roots are simple: a history and explanation of the English language, and how it works and has worked.

Not too hard to understand. So why the big hype about it? Why do I flaunt and fangirl and rave like a joyous kid who got their dose of candy--and then some!--when I talk about this book? Well, that's because most of the things addressed in this book are RELEVANT and cause the most hubbub today out of countless things going on in the reading, writing, and speaking world! And guess what? Questions like "Why don't people speak proper English?" and "How can they get away with destroying our beautiful English language like that?!" are addressed in this book. Not only that, but hey: anyone else want some answers on Slang? Texting? 1337 Speak? Cursing? "Proper" English and more? Yeah, I thought you might.

This book talks about all those things, and it also goes back into the origins of the English language to show us where it first started from, how it changed, what the issues were several centuries ago and more. And the most shocking thing? A lot of the problems that we all fuss, foam, and rage about today were issues that people who spoke English have been having for ever. Since the time the language BEGAN we had the same issues popping up, even if they weren't rooted in things like our technological advancements today. There were cultures that strove against each other, competitions in forms and ways of writing that were both social and political, even country-oriented. We get SO much knowledge in this book! And though sometimes it's definitely a culture shock to see just what "English" looked and sounded like back when it first began, it's definitely not boring! Being able to actually read half of the things that Jack Lynch covers in this relatively normal sized book is saying something in and of itself! Most people who would be presented with half the stuff he covers in this book in any other situation would be like:



But know what's the amazing thing? You can read this... and get it.

I am quite completely in love with this book and its presentation of history, of how it engages the mind of the reader by its fuller offer of information in regards to language in general--not to shy from the English language on a whole either. God, it's an amazing book! Reading it is like taking in the most delicious of experiences, of eating your favorite food, tasting the sweetest of drinks on your tongue! The comprehension that Jack Lynch allows us by his easy-to-read, conversational method of explaining and elaborating on so many presumed complex materials is enough to make someone fall to their knees and thank the blessed Lord that there's SOMEONE out there that gets more than you do, and that his knowledge from so much study can be so easy to understand and follow, even when you're not an expert or even knowledgeable in what it is he's teaching you.

Mind you, readers, I speak from experience outside of just this book's realm. I bought this book because Jack Lynch, its author, is and has been my professor at Rutgers University for the past year and a half now. And although that pinpoints me more than I am usually comfortable with in terms of location, to advocate this man and his knowledge is more than worthy a cause. My best friend knows the hours I've spent in a day gushing to her over the phone about how credible and wonderful a teacher he is; and! how enjoyable, entertaining, and--did I mention wonderful?--a man he is in general. He's the kind of person who takes the time to be a person, and whose passion and joy in his work supersedes everything else, emanating in all that he does. This was the first time that I'd received the chance to read any of his writing however, for all that I've done much reading under his overall guidance in my classes at school. But even here, reading the text, The Lexicographer's Dilemma, his voice clearly can be heard in its pages. The knowledge that fills this book still carries his conversational tone, underlined by his natural and easy humor, and always carrying that very present, perceptible note of one who understands, and who is doing his best to guide the reader patiently through so that he or she can also understand. This has always been, to me, one of the most enamoring and remarkable of his qualities as a professor. And in this book, I'm ecstatic to find that not a single bit of who he is in person has changed in the conveyance of who he is in writing. He's the same man, back and front, and that made the reading of this book not only a breeze, but a pleasure.

When you have the chance to enjoy knowledge, that's one thing. But when you get the opportunity to learn it almost effortlessly, even unconsciously, that's when you know you're learning it from a good source. As a book used for education, The Lexicographer's Dilemma is an amazingly successful piece. But even as a book for the cursory learner, or the glancing reader--the skimmer--this is a book that has countless granules of knowledge that it can provide for someone not reading it for a class. In fact, one of the things I mentioned to my family when I was just about ten pages from the end of the book was along the lines of this:

"I had so many issues with people who speak the language today. Text speak, not speaking properly, writing not even close to properly, worrying that the language was going to be ruined! But after reading this book, all those anxieties I've always had about the way people talk and write? They've calmed down now. I feel like the anxieties have gone away. I know more: about the history of our language, about how it was used and the changes that it went through, and I'm not as anxious anymore. I'm not as worried. I can kinda breathe a sigh of relief, and relax now. Because I understand what's happening in today's day, and even if I don't like it, by understanding it it means that I can--at the very least--control my own feelings about it. And that's something that many people have no way of doing today. They're so stuck on Right and Wrong that they fail to take into consideration that maybe, just maybe, there are things more important than what's right and wrong--especially when the existence of language has always been affected by one thing more than anything else: people doing what feels natural to them.

My readers, my writers, and every speaker of the English language--or any other language for that matter!--this is a book that will satisfy curiosity, teach you a great deal more than you ever knew or even suspected about Language itself, and can guide you naturally into the midst of the chaos that abounds in our English speaking world. And it can do all this without ever once hinting at the fact that it's "educating" you. I recommend this book to absolutely everyone, because I cannot think of a group of people who would not benefit from reading this. Language is how all people express themselves. Being able to take a dip into this book and enjoy our language in its own right is an amazing, unexpectedly productive trip. I highly recommend you do so. <3 In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that you should go out and buy this book. Because I can't see you regretting it. At all. Hope you all enjoy!


And to my professor: Thank you for putting this book on your syllabus. It's benefited me more than I could have imagined. Just like randomly stumbling upon your 18th Century Literature classes more than a year ago now did as well. Without this random, chance, wonderful guidance I've received--I doubt I would be half as happy today as I am. The way you teach, and the things you teach, have helped me to grow and expand my mind in the ways most naturally suited to life: not without effort, but absolutely without pain, animosity, and regrets. Thank you! You've made a lasting impression, and my only gift in return is that I can spread that same great impression I have of you on to others. I hope to do so! I truly, greatly do.

[Lori · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most reviewers call this book a history of English. It is actually a history of ‘proper’ or Standard English, the English we are taught in school, the English that people are forever complaining is degenerating into mere babble. It is also good introduction to the battle between descriptive vs. prescriptive English. In a way, this book is a rebuttal to the books like Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. Those of us with more knowledge (like me) may have some complaints but will still find it worthwhile.

It is enjoyable and easy to read. The style is that of connected magazine articles (two of the chapters actually were magazine articles) which makes it easy to pick up and put down. It covers the history and evolution of Standard English from the first conception of it (late 1600s) until today. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on spelling, a clear description of why our words are spelled so strangely and why that is not likely to change except piecemeal and slowly. For more description see the other reviews.

The book loses a star because in describing the descriptivist attitude the author mostly writes as though it is much looser than it really is, and that he agrees with this. In a way he makes it sound as though anything goes and that is not true. All styles of English has rules, and they can be very strict, whether or not there is a teacher grading it. (Try speaking slang to a teenager.) He is a college English professor, so he does know about registers and dialects (slang, ‘proper’, Australian, California casual) and he also knows why Standard English is more important (you need it to get better jobs and to succeed socially). It is not until the last chapter that he reveals that most experts are not as hard-core as it seems from the book. Actually most of the uproar comes from non-academics, which is understandable. After all, we are all experts on the language we grew up with and that can make us very emotional.

It loses another star because he only rarely discusses other languages or linguistics. This gives the impression that it is only English that has this fascination with laying down rules. Actually, by not having a governmental body like most other European languages we are far more relaxed. Also, comparison with other languages helps explain not only why certain words and forms of grammar are Standard, but where other versions come from and why they are still ‘good’ English.

Autobiographical Note: As a (volunteer) teacher of English to adult foreign students who are college educated and fairly fluent I am acutely aware of the prescriptive vs. descriptive issue. Most non-native speakers are taught formal Standard English. When they arrive here (Stanford) they find they cannot understand California casual speech. On the other hand, most of them will write in English for business or academia, both of which have strict grammatical and vocabulary rules. Much of our vocabulary is used to distinguish register (casual, formal, business) so a lot of my time is spent explaining which words are used in which situations, exactly where the prescriptive descriptive battle is being fought.

[Melody · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book satisfied the word geek in me - I'm eternally researching the etymology of any unique word or trying to decipher how much loyalty to bestow on various grammar "rules". I'm constantly trying to find the balance between being a rule-follower and a free spirit, and it seems that most lexicographers have a similar dilemma. The book was well organized (vital for nonfiction) and written in a clear, entertaining manner. I listened to the audio, but will be buying the print copy to reread in bits and pieces.

[Margie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was a bit surprised by engaging this book is. The book looks at this history of English, with a focus on the tools (spellers, grammars, and dictionaries) developed by either prescriptivists or descriptivists. It was fascinating.

[Tiffany · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is so-so, but I can't figure out why it's only so-so for me. It's about language, how it's evolved, how it's used in different situations, ... why am I not liking it? The words seem like they should be interesting, but for some reason, they're just not grabbing me.

But! The chapters about controversies over different dictionaries are super interesting! For instance, the 3rd edition of Webster's is so controversial that the reviewers of the 1960s used political and Cold War parallels, made a comparison to Kinsey's sex studies, and James Parton, from the American Heritage Publishing Co., tried to buy his way into a hostile takeover of the Merriam Company just so he could take the 3rd edition out of print and quickly get an acceptable 4th edition out. Sheesh! That's like Real Housewives drama there! #wordnerds

So the first few chapters (or about the first half of the book) seemed meh to me, the "so-so" feelings. Finally, though, I really got into it. Maybe once we got to the era of dictionaries and those wicked reviews, the topic picked up for me. I was going to give the book 3 stars, but about the midway- or 2/3-way point, I got into its groove better, so my final review is 4 stars.

[Sewveryblessed · Rating 5 out of 5]

A history of how old word nerds came to develop our current American language. The dilemma is the choice between making rules about language, and explaining what language means. Lynch goes through the historical process of how dictionaries were created and how grammar rules were invented. A fun tidbit is that the American dictionary writers in the 18th century were so anti-British (post-Revolution), that they intentionally included words that were in no way connected to the British English language. As an English Language Arts teacher and grammar enthusiast, I found this book highly entertaining as well as educational. Someone who is less excited about etymology would likely find this more boring.
Some of the answered questions in this book are:
How do people write dictionaries? Who chooses what counts as appropriate language? Why does slang change over the centuries? Why is Webster the household name for dictionaries? Why are there so many exceptions to spelling rules and grammar rules?

[Rachel Karas · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm mixed on this one. The first 75% or so of the book felt like a re-hash to me of every other book I've read about the history of English. It was only in the last few chapters that I actually noticed Lynch taking a stance, and my appreciation of the book dramatically increased once that happened. Unfortunately, my enjoyment of the book was marred by listening to a narrator who, while I'm sure he would be perfectly competent for a different book, received either terrible coaching or none on the pronunciation of Middle English and foreign words.

[John Alsdorf · Rating 5 out of 5]

a good read to challenge the prescriptivist…

…among whose ranks I remain, but this book brought me to a better understanding of the linguists who prefer to be called descriptivists.

If you have a collection of books on grammar and proper word usage—as I do—make sure you include this one as well

[Ilya Hanafi · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you fancy language and culture as much as I do, you'll love this book. And I use info in this book as my ammo to the grammar police out there.

[Jen Steed Knapp · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finally finished this beast!!!!! Lots and lots of info stuffed into this book. In my opinion, the writing style was geared specifically for a scholarly audience. If you like a bit of a pretentious vibe, you'll like the book. If not, definitely skip it. I'll leave you with the best quote of the book: "Grace and clarity should always trump pedantry." Get off your high horse about language, people, and communicate with grace and clarity. Love it.

[Patricia · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a really interesting look at where the "rules" for English or even the idea that there are/should be rules come from. I've read a lot of history of English language books over the years, and I still learned a lot

[Joe Lawrence · Rating 5 out of 5]

Delightful.

Not everyone's choice-- full of information and anecdotes about the origins of the Engish language and the dictionaries.

This book's for anyone who loves word origins and laughs at lolcat comics.

[Shirley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall this is an accessible, nontechnical introduction to the history of the (attempted) regulation and evolution of the English language. More like a 3.5-star read. (Could have been four stars, but hard to say because I read most of it sometime between 3 and 5 am during these last weeks of pregnancy...) In the prescriptivist-descriptivist divide in linguistics (where prescriptivists are more, well, prescriptive/rule based and descriptivists lay out - with less judgment - the way language is on the basis of people's use), the author leans more toward the latter. This is evident in his tracing of certain grammatical "rules" - for example, he makes it clear that the no-split-infinitive "rule" came about because someone decided (in the 17th or 18th century?) that splitting infinitives was wrong (because it was wrong to do so in Latin). Same goes for the don't-end-sentences-in-a-proposition "rule." His point is, who cares about a rule that is somewhat arbitrary if no one cares to follow it? (He does say that language rules are important for purposes of clarity/communication and power - it's not that "ain't" is a wrong word, but it's highly unlikely you'll get the job if you keep using ain't at an interview.) He predicts with some relish that the tricky "who" versus "whom" distinction will be gone by the end of this century (and frankly speaking, I'm not sad at that prospect!).

Interestingly, although he acknowledges that throughout the history of written language the mode of publishing (e.g., on tablets to scrolls to the printing press) has affected the content, he also dismisses the idea that texting will lead to the acceptance of abominable spelling/grammar and indeed views the abbreviations in texting as a creative (and deliberately context-dependent) form of expression. I fear he might be a bit optimistic here but hope he's right.

[Beth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book covers some of the problems of English grammar. It deals with a couple of basic questions: 1. What is proper English? and 2. Who decides that?

It introduces the conflict between the prescriptivists, who believe in proper English and think the current usage is a sign of moral decline and the English speaking world going to Hell-in-a-hand-basket, and their opponents, the descriptivists who want to go by how English is currently spoken.

There are chapters on how and why spelling was standardized, and various men who set out to make the rules of correct English. Mr. Lynch also covers the making of dictionaries from Samuel Johnson forward.

I found the over reaction to some of these problems quite funny. Did you know that mob was an abbreviation? Anyone who used mob around Jonathan Swift could expect a passionate set down.

The conflict caused by Webster's Third International Dictionary (1961) was epic. The reviews that saw it as the end of civilization as we know it are VERY funny.

If you are interested in the development of English, I think you will enjoy this book.

[Ryan Mishap · Rating 4 out of 5]

English is approximately 1500 years old and no one suggested there should be rules for spelling, grammar, or what words one chooses to use until recently. Indeed, until the printing press came along and writing began its conquering march over language, how one spoke was only governed by how everyone spoke--common usage, in effect. Even as writing gained prominence, spelling was left to individuals (and printing shops made their own decisions) and grammar remained organic--until the 18th century.

Lynch has written an engaging summary of the history of language and writing reformers, would-be generals of grammar, and learned lexicographers grappling with the chaos, ingenuity, and fluidity of the english language. The battle between prescriptivism and descriptivism hovered around the various participants advocating codification, those creating dictionaries, and modern commentators today condemning texting as a threat to the language.

Detailed and yet breezy, recommended for anyone enamored of words and the ways in which we use them as morals and mores constantly change.

[Ami · Rating 5 out of 5]

My friend Adrian wrote a brilliantly concise & astute review that I can't get out of my head when I'm reading, so I'd recommend checking that out too.

An intelligent & fun meander through the history of the English language, and the (mostly) men who attempted to shape it through dictionary-making and other means. The conclusion, however, is that English is shaped by the way its speakers and writers use it, for good or bad. Lynch comes down as a smooth blend of descriptivist (language is as language does) academic with enough sympathy toward prescriptivists (language should be used correctly, whatever that is at the moment, although it is constantly changing) that you don't feel completely unmoored. I do wish his analyses of more current issues were just a touch stronger. Definitely worth a read.

[Adrian]

If you have ever railed on about the poor English grammar in the world today- and who hasn't?- this is the book for you. Lynch details the spectacular futility of attempts to reform English spelling and grammar as well as attempts to stop the language from changing. He divides all lexicographers- amateur or professional- into two groups; descriptivists and prescriptivists. The first describe language the second are intent on shaping it. Lynch is a descriptivist which is a little unsettling at first but he's so successful in taking apart the prescriptivists' agendas which frequently have more to do with ageism, classism and racism than they do language- that it's very difficult not to concede defeat. Lots of information in here too about derivations of words and phrases. Well done.

[Marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bounced a little in my chair, silently squeeing as I realized the chapter I was reading was laying the groundwork for the OED and the author was drawing out the reveal just for my own personal delight.

So, if you don't mist up at the thought of Strunk and White, as I did a few chapters later, you might not enjoy this book as thoroughly as I did - but it is still an engaging, fun read. Lynch mixes history with wit and humility to paint a clear picture of our struggle with our own language. My only complaints are a little bit of repetition and that I wanted even more.

[Melinda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. A fascinating journey into the world of the spoken and written word and learning about the history of English has never been put forward in such an interesting way. Well worth a look. Definitely not a dry, boring read.

[Pancha · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very droll book about the history of English as seen through books about English. Recommended to anyone who works with words, or just loves them.

[Rebekah Byson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who would have thought a book on the brief history of dictionaries and grammar would be interesting?

[Sandi · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a very accessible book for my students in an Intro to the History of English Language class geared towards for Secondary Ed majors. It had a definite moral that is consistent with most linguistic texts: that there's no inherently right way to do English. Much of what is taught as "wrong" in grade school English courses do not uphold a standard of clarity, Lynch argues, but one of formality/politeness and adherence to a dominant dialect. To Lynch's credit, his manner of presenting this argument is designed for the intelligent but perhaps somewhat resistant reader, and though his message is clear and consistent he isn't dogmatic.

Instead, he lets the stories themselves do the talking, allowing the reader to see how and why dictionaries and writing guides developed the way they have since modern English. Lynch is nuanced and generous to the motives of early dictionary pioneers, who come off as misguided at times, but there are also clear heroes among them, particularly Johnson's descriptive methodology. Particularly convincing to his thesis that "correct" English is a matter of etiquette is that many early writing guides were actually etiquette guides on how to write formal letters and not embarrass oneself at parties and such. Lynch uses direct quotations from these guides and presents a good deal of factual material in easily-digestible, vivid language.

The final chapters hit on recent movements to control/censor language and these were particularly interesting. Carlin is always very quotable. I have two very minor concerns about the conclusion, however. One is that it doesn't go far enough into the present. It's a 2009 book, sure, so it's 10 years old now. But still, I would have thought there'd be more about technology besides addressing the accusation of language going to hell in a handbasket. The prevalence of autocorrect in smartphones and internal spellcheck dictionaries seems like it warrants some discussion to have a complete picture of how dictionaries might increasing influences on the dominant dialects accepted in online spaces. Emojis might be fun to talk about as well. I'd love to see an updated version of this book.

My second concern is with the message as a whole, and this isn't a criticism as much with Lynch as it is with the message of "no right English" that is very prominent in most ling texts. I agree wholeheartedly that the English language is a system of arbitrary rules, some of which do not need to be maintained in order to have clarity, and most of all of which were created by social forces that have been ruthless and unfair to the languages and dialects of others as well as the people who speak them. Awareness of this is very important. So, if Lynch is just arguing that a grammarian shouldn't tell a little kid that they are stupid or lazy for speaking in a dialect that is perfectly fine at home, well, great, I'm totes on board.

However, politeness and etiquette, and rather than being negligible or somehow less real than clarity, is actually quite important to effective communication. This is perhaps most clear when Lynch speaks about the arbitrary nature of language when it comes to using slurs and "curse" words. To be sure, there is no magic property that makes one word inherently offensive/wrong/immoral, and what is offensive one day is fine the next (and, of course, vice versa) but I don't think we should ignore the social aspect of language either. Though perhaps a certain combination of letters is not itself inherently immoral, I can be wrong for using it. And, certainly, my communication, however clear it is, can be ineffective due to my choice of words. Respect markers and choice of dialect in some situations can sometimes work in similar ways--being interpreted as impolite, even when perfectly clear.

Ironically, the message of "'correct' language use as politeness" is not a reason to discount politeness altogether but actually a bid for human beings to be more polite themselves. The motive seems to me to be that speakers of "standard English" be more considerate to and less judgmental of others when they do not speak the dominant dialect. I'm down with that, but I think we should be careful to recognize this as a normative message and not merely a statement of fact.

But I'll add to that message, that more attention rather than less attention should be paid to style since basic clarity isn't the be-all end-all of what we're after in communication. I don't actually think Lynch would disagree since he includes examples of beautiful non-standard forms of English and obviously clearly understands different grammatical varieties in the history of English. Instead of merely saying that this is just as good as that, I think we should move beyond and see how it all really ticks.

[Paul Fidalgo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jack Lynch's fascinating book, The Lexicographer's Dilemma, is full of original insights, refreshing perspective, and delightful trivia about our mother tongue. It spans history and academia to lend understanding to what it means for a word to be considered an "official" part of the English language. The gist, as you might surmise, is that there is no such thing as the official version of the language. Dictionaries and pedants have over the centuries set down guidelines about propriety, some more sternly than others, but on the whole, the language is an ever-evolving, gelatinous swarm of words, idioms, and ideas. Lynch would have it no other way, and has little regard for those prescriptivists who attempt to nail it down.

[Note: this review was originally published at my blog, Near-Earth(dot)com. Visit, won't you?]

To give an idea of the book's overall theme, see Lynch's take on the word/non-word "ain't," which he describes as...

. . . the most stigmatized word in the language . . . [which] every five-year-old is taught is not a word. But why not? Just because. It originally entered the language as a contracted form of am not (passing through a phase as an’t before the a sound was lengthened) and first appeared in print in 1778, in Frances Burney’s novel Evelina. We have uncontroversial contractions for is not (isn’t) and are not (aren’t), so what’s wrong with reducing am not to ain’t? The problem is that it was marked as a substandard word in the nineteenth century, people have been repeating the injunction ever since, and no amount of logic can undo it. It’s forbidden simply because it’s been forbidden.

You see where he's coming from. We can so easily take for granted notions of what words are "real" and which are not (I am more guilty of this kind of parsing than most), forgetting that the real arbiters of these disputes are not thick books of alphabetically arranged terms, nor English text books, but actual human beings using those words. We don't fault Shakespeare, for example, for inventing new words -- whether they were based on existing words, or made from whole cloth -- in fact, the earliest lexicographers used great writers such as Shakespeare as the starting point for what was and was not an English word. But any such effort made before Shakespeare would have missed his substantial contributions.

So what other kinds of words tend to get nudged out of "proper" or "official" English? It can be pretty surprising when one considers what gets to stick around. For example. it makes perfect sense that newer words like "blog" or even the latest sense of the word "tweet" should be given general lexicographical approval, but what about words based entirely on error -- not on some creative use of language? I'm thinking, of course, of the recent decision of the folks of the Oxford English Dictionary to give "word of the year" credence to Sarah Palin's "refudiate," a word muddled entirely from her ignorance of the word's two roots. If a "wrong" word falls into common use by millions, that's one thing. When a narcissistic anti-intellectual mob-inciter like Palin screws something up, I have trouble understanding why that should be given any credibility, even if it is half-tongue-in-cheek.

Another example of those terms that are real English words in the sense that Anglophones use them, but don't get dictionary codification because of their arcaneness in the eyes and ears of the general populace: scientific terms. Lynch again:

. . . if including everything scientific is impossible, so is excluding everything scientific. Everyone recognizes the need to include some scientific words like fruit fly, koala, carbon, and salt. But why should a lexicographer include daffodil and atom but omit brasolaeliocattleya (a kind of orchid) and graviscalar bosons (theoretical subatomic particles)? There’s no difference in the character of the words, only in the familiarity of the things they identify. If some future technological breakthrough makes us all familiar with graviscalar bosons, they’ll eventually show up in the major general dictionaries. Until then, they have to remain in the language’s antechamber.

I'm pulling for graviscalar bosons. I see no reason why it shouldn't be in general use, if for no reason than that it's a delight to say. Try it.

But, like "ain't," some words are beyond the language's antechamber and instead find themselves in the house's hidden dungeon. These are of course our "dirty words." The origin of the concept of utterly-unacceptable words may surprise you, and be especially enlightening to my atheist readership:

The notion that particular words are taboo can probably be traced back to primitive beliefs about sympathetic magic, in which language can be used to injure people at a distance. It’s telling that many of our unseemly words are known as curses, since the conception of offensive language seems to have derived from a belief in the power of a malefactor to place a curse on an enemy.

So not only are "curse words" arbitrary and, on the whole, harmless in and of themselves, but their supposed power derives from notions of the supernatural, as though uttering them could do actual physical or spiritual damage. Makes the case for their enfranchisement even stronger, as no one will be made mysteriously ill or forced to reincarnate as a dung beetle by my typing the word "fuck."

Of late, there may be no one who better illustrates -- through written and verbal usage -- the delightfully changeable nature of language than humorist Stephen Fry, who wrote a few years ago in an ever-relevant essay:

Convention exists, of course it does, but convention is no more a register of rightness or wrongness than etiquette is, it’s just another way of saying usage: convention is a privately agreed usage rather than a publicly evolving one. Conventions alter too, like life. . . . Imagine if we all spoke the same language, fabulous as it is, as Dickens? Imagine if the structure, meaning and usage of language was always the same as when Swift and Pope were alive. Superficially appealing as an idea for about five seconds, but horrifying the more you think about it.

If you are the kind of person who insists on this and that ‘correct use’ I hope I can convince you to abandon your pedantry. Dive into the open flowing waters and leave the stagnant canals be.

But above all let there be pleasure. Let there be textural delight, let there be silken words and flinty words and sodden speeches and soaking speeches and crackling utterance and utterance that quivers and wobbles like rennet. Let there be rapid firecracker phrases and language that oozes like a lake of lava. Words are your birthright.

This being so, we should make better use of this birthright. Embrace the changes, relish the experimentation, the creative truncations, the inventions, and at the same time, educate yourself. Learn the words that are unfamiliar. You can't do Jackson Pollock-type abstract painting until you learn to reproduce the works of the impressionists. You can't do improvisational jazz until you have mastered, note for note, the classical works of centuries past. Likewise, don't presume to change the language until you are sufficiently familiar with it that your creativity means something -- be aware of what you and those around you are doing to the language hundreds of millions of us share. And as Fry says, in this, find pleasure.

[Trevor Seigler · Rating 4 out of 5]

English is one of the most dominant languages around the world, but it's also one of the most confounding. The rules often seem arbitrary (because they are) and the variations in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning can frustrate new speakers of the language and those of us who have been raised in it alike. What's it all about, this 'proper' English business?

"The Lexicographer's Dilemma" by Jack Lynch is a fun, informative tour of the history of the language, providing the reader with a glimpse into the ways in which it was shaped by forces and people that are sometimes lost to history (or who loom large over it, especially in literary circles). English as a language owes quite a bit to various languages over time, as Lynch demonstrates, but the forms in which we know it today evolved over centuries and led to debates over proper usage, how to define words, and which ones are obscene. Ranging from Joseph Priestley to George Carlin, from Samuel Johnson to Noah Webster, and from Old English to AAVE (African-American Vernacular English), Lynch gives us a look at the ways in which English resists codification despite the many, many attempts to make it make sense.

We get everything from dictionary wars to the story of how Carlin's "seven words you can't say on television" actually became the guiding principle for a more restrictive FCC in the wake of his album's release. We also learn how those who would make restrictions on how the language is used are often talking out of their own bottoms, which is reassuring to this former English major who always suspected so many of the "grammar rules" were arbitrary.

I enjoyed this book (sent to me by a friend after I boldly proclaimed last year that I'd seek a side hustle as a copywriter or copyeditor; as of this writing, I've done nada to pursue that goal, though who knows what the summer will bring?), and highly recommend it to anyone wondering how it is that we got stuck with the Queen's English to begin with, and why it's so frustrating at times to make heads or tails of.

[Janet · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you like words, or grammar, or language, you will love this book. How did English end up as the English we speak today? Where did all the grammar rules come from (such as not ending a sentence with a preposition)? Who decided these rules? How do dictionaries affect grammar and the choice of words that one uses?
Much of the book deals with the two types of grammarians – the prescriptivists and the descriptivists. One wants to set hard and fast rules to the language, the other wants to describe it. Grammatical rules are relatively new to English. In the 17th century, John Dryden was one of the first to prescribe what proper English is. The 18th century prescriptivists along with Dryden imposed Latin grammar rules on the English language. They are why we all have been taught to not split infinitives or end sentences with prepositions and when to use who vs. whom. English is not Latin so in reality these rules make no sense.
Reading this book, I recognized myself as a prescriptivist, always correcting grammar and spelling and word usage. The misuse of words could drive me crazy. One in particular is the word “decimate”. He shows how meanings change with time and there is nothing that can be done to change that and “decimate” is an example that he gives. Guess I will have to learn to take deep breaths from now on when I hear or read it ‘misused’.
And if you are still a prescriptivist and want some type of government group or edict to set proper English, remember that in 1975 Gerald Ford signed a bill to convert the US to the metric system. How has that worked?

[Steve Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm a lover of the English language. I love to play with it and love to read about its history and evolution. For nerds like me this is compulsory...and compelling reading.

Lynch gives readers a history of the first dictionaries ever published. He discusses the now centuries old (and still heated) arguments over the "proper" grammar and spelling of the English language. Are you a "grammar Nazi"? Prepare to be de-Nazified, as Lynch shows us that the "prescriptivist" tendencies of some of us aren't founded on any true intellectual basis, and are, if anything, a bit elitist. Lynch, like John McWhorter in his lecture for "The Great Courses", explains that language evolves. Nothing anyone can do is going to prevent that.

This is a fun book, and is going on my shelf next to Bill Bryson's "The Mother Tongue" and "Made In America", and my various books written by William Safire and Edwin Newman. David Crystal, a linguist that influenced much of Lynch's book, may end up there as well.