# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Built into human nature seems to be an unfortunate tendency to overcorrect other people's errors. Whenever we see someone persistently veering too far to the right, instead of gently nudging them back onto the strait and narrow, we instinctively want to pull them hard to the left. And if they then start to veer too far to the left, someone is bound to yank them back forcefully towards the right. So, instead of navigating a middle path that carefully avoids both extremes, people often lurch back and forth from one side to the other, alternately pulled this way or that by well-intentioned but misguided partisans who take an all-or-nothing view of the truth, refusing to acknowledge any validity in the other side's views, and rejecting on principle the very notion of compromise. We see this all the time in politics and religion, of course. But, strangely enough, we also see it in the study of language, in the endless debate between "prescriptivists" and "descriptivists" -- between the "sticklers" (sometimes vilified as "Grammar Nazis") who insist that there is a "proper" way of speaking and writing that ought to be taught and that everyone ought to follow, and those who take a "live and let live" attitude towards language use, arguing that everyone ought to be free to speak and write in whatever way feels natural to them. Essentially, prescriptivists want to prescribe how people are supposed to speak and write, while descriptivists just want to describe how people actually do speak and write, without criticizing their use of language. But in practice, descriptivists often end up being more than mere passive observers of language use. Instead, they tend to become advocates for non-standard language use, and staunch opponents of prescriptivism wherever it may be found. In other words, they become vocal anti-prescriptivists, campaigning against any attempt by anyone to tell people how they ought to speak and write. The problem with the prescriptivists as well as the anti-prescriptivist descriptivists is that both are taking extreme positions -- each trying to overcorrect the errors of the other -- each refusing to acknowledge that the other side raises some valid points, and that the most reasonable position is likely to be found somewhere in the middle.

This book was written in an attempt to correct some of the most egregious errors in the prescriptivist view of language -- including many errors that were in desperate need of correction. I can certainly sympathize with the author's desire to debunk a number of commonly held myths about language, and to denounce any attempt to force language to conform to some mythical standard of purity that can never be achieved. But, in my opinion, the author falls into the old trap of overcorrection. Authoritarian prescriptivism is firmly rejected, as it should be; but it is replaced by something equally misguided: nihilistic anti-prescriptivism -- the rejection of all standards and value judgments when it comes to language use. Not only does the author rebuke those language bigots who view every language and dialect but their own with contempt; not only does he reproach those language purists who lament the "corruption" of their native tongue each time a word gets borrowed from another language or a new idiom is coined by the younger generation; not only does he reprimand those language snobs who seem to equate fluency and eloquence with moral worth -- all of which he is fully justified in doing -- he actually goes so far as to reprove those who simply wish to help people speak and write better by, for example, giving advice on grammar, punctuation, usage, diction, and style. And this is where I feel that the author goes too far, crossing the line from judicious critique to knee-jerk diatribe. He basically argues that anyone who believes that some ways of speaking and writing are preferable to others are elitists, conservatives, and perhaps even bigots. Now, admittedly, his most ill-considered comments are found mainly in his first couple of chapters; and he does eventually walk some of those comments back a little bit -- at least going so far as to admit that it's okay to prefer cogent writing over unintelligible word salad -- and his later chapters have a much more temperate tone. But even in these later chapters there can be no mistake that this book is meant as a polemic against prescriptivism in all its varieties.

And that's perhaps my biggest complaint about the book as a whole: It is a polemic. It is very informative; but it informs not merely to educate, but to persuade. The information in this book has been cherry picked and arranged by the author to support his argument. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; but I would have much preferred an in-depth, non-polemical exploration of any one of the many fascinating linguistics topics touched upon in this book. Instead, the author gives us a hodgepodge of interesting factoids about language, carefully stitched together in order to illustrate his assertion that prescriptivism is misguided. While I would dispute some of his more controversial claims, I find many of the points he raises to be quite valid and worthy of consideration. On the whole, I'm glad I read this book. But I still found its overt polemicism rather off-putting.

I debated whether to give this book three or four stars -- it's far too flawed to merit five, but not so flawed as to merit only two -- and ultimately decided to be charitable, because it does address a number of topics that really did need to be addressed. There are many popularly-held misconceptions about language out there; and somebody has to try to dispel them. The author makes a well-intentioned, if somewhat overenthusiastic, effort at doing just that. Had I written this book, I would have approached the subject with a bit more circumspection; but I'll concede that the author deserves a grade of B for his effort. (Though, admittedly, I do have the reputation of being a fairly lenient grader.) But I can't review this book without offering my honest critique of its shortcomings. In particular, I have to note that the author makes several claims that I consider highly dubious.

Some of the language "myths" he aims to debunk are not mere popular misconceptions, but are ideas that are still open for debate within the field of linguistics. Though not a professional linguist himself -- the author is a journalist -- he isn't shy about rendering his own verdict on various controversies within the discipline. And he often does so without adequately presenting both sides of the debate. His portrayal of some of the positions he disagrees with amounts to little more than straw man arguments. For example, he scoffs at the claim that some words are "untranslatable" -- i.e. that they can't be expressed in a different language -- on the grounds that, if you're willing to take the time and effort to do so, it's always possible to explain, in any language you choose, exactly what those words mean and how they are used. But when people say that a certain word is "untranslatable" they aren't implying that the word can't be defined using the words of another language; they're simply noting that the word doesn't have a direct semantic equivalent -- i.e. a word or short phrase with the same basic denotation, connotation, and usage -- in that other language. They're saying that the word can't easily be glossed without something being "lost in translation". Anyone who has ever tried to translate a text from one language into another, hoping to capture the nuanced meaning of the original, knows from experience that this is true. Some words are notoriously difficult to gloss. Sure, lexicographers can explain the meaning of these words and how they are used -- and, if they're willing to devote several paragraphs to each word, they can even explore their subtlest shades of meaning -- but lexicography is not translation. There's a difference between defining a word within the pages of a dictionary and translating that word within a text, a speech, or a conversation. Any word can be defined; but some words are practically impossible to translate. If you don't believe me, then perhaps you could tell me how to translate the English indefinite article -- "a" or "an" -- into a language like Russian that doesn't use indefinite articles, in a way that manages to preserve the ambiguity between the article's expression of indefiniteness ("an apple" = any apple) and its expression of singularity ("an apple" = one apple). Or maybe you could help me translate the word "Obamacare" into Ancient Greek in a way that captures not only its denotation (i.e. the specific thing it refers to) but also its connotation (i.e. the implied attitude towards that thing) as it is used in contemporary American politics. By conflating translation with definition, the author essentially uses a straw man argument to make his case that any idea can be expressed equally well in any language.

The author resorts to a similar straw man portrayal of the controversial idea that language shapes thought. It goes without saying that he agrees with most contemporary linguists in his rejection of the "strong" version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which holds that language determines what can and cannot be thought. But it's not clear that any serious linguist -- including either Edward Sapir or Benjamin Lee Whorf -- has ever embraced "strong" Whorfianism, which appears to be little more than a caricature of the Whorfian position on language. Most actual Whorfians (and "neo-Whorfians") hold to the "weak" version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which argues that language influences how people think, but doesn't actually constrain what can be thought. But the author has little regard for "weak" Whorfianism, essentially treating it as if it were nothing more than a watered down version of "strong" Whorfianism -- its claims about thought and language being so trivial as to be unworthy of serious consideration. He dismisses out of hand any linguist who claims that how we use language has a non-trivial impact on how we see the world. George Lakoff is particularly singled out for ridicule for his theories about metaphorical thought and the "framing" of political issues. Lera Boroditsky receives somewhat better treatment, perhaps because it's hard to simply dismiss the wealth of empirical evidence she has gathered in support of her claims. However, although the author acknowledges Boroditsky's work, he tries his best to minimize its significance so he can press on with his assertion that language doesn't really have much of an impact on how people think. It is essential for him to cling to this claim, because his argument against prescriptivism depends, in large part, on maintaining it. After all, if language does shape thought in any meaningful way, then prescriptivists might actually have some justification for preferring certain ways of speaking and writing over others, be their motives pure (e.g. promoting clear thinking) or impure (e.g. suppressing ways of thinking they don't approve of). So, the author can't allow himself to concede that language shapes thought in any but the most trivial of ways.

But the author's biggest failing, in my view, is his insistence on attacking and discrediting even the mildest forms of prescriptivism. And this is where my critique must turn into a full-fledged rant; because I've encountered this attitude many times before, and I find it utterly indefensible. I need a moment to vent some pent-up frustrations here; and this is the place to do it. So, settle in, boys and girls, this may take a while.

As I've already pointed out, many of the author's criticisms of prescriptivism are perfectly valid; and they needed to be made. But he simply takes things too far. It's not enough for him to point out the absurdity of obsolete and misguided proscriptions against splitting infinitives, ending sentences with prepositions, or using slang terms and colloquialisms in informal speech and writing. Rather, he goes so far as to excuse all manner of common mistakes in grammar, punctuation, and usage -- including such cringeworthy errors as the so-called "greengrocer's apostrophe" -- treating them as if they aren't really "mistakes" at all, but simply alternative forms that are just as legitimate as the "proper" forms preferred by the sticklers. This laissez-faire attitude toward language use, which regards any form of prescriptivism as utterly illegitimate, has become the dominant view not only among semi-literate teenagers on internet discussion boards but also among academic linguists and students of linguistics. They rail against anyone who tries to "correct" other people's grammar and usage, insisting that it is impermissible to treat any particular way of speaking or writing as being more "correct" than any other way of speaking or writing.

But this attitude is misguided. It is based, to a large extent I think, on what I like to call the "Academic Fallacy": the erroneous belief, implicitly held by many scholars and university students, that the norms of the academy ought to apply outside of academia as well, to society at large. In other words, it is the mistaken notion that the world ought to be run according to the same principles that scholars and students are expected to follow when conducting academic research. In this view, any behavior that is frowned upon within the academy should likewise be frowned upon in the "real world" outside of the academy. This way of looking at the world is fallacious because it ignores the fact that the norms of the academy exist as a means to a very specific end: the advancement of knowledge. If we wished to pursue other ends, then other means -- and therefore other norms -- would be appropriate instead. In the broader society outside of academia many different ends are being pursued. Thus, the norms of the academy are not necessarily the best norms for society at large. But it's hard to convince scholars and students of this simple truth. The academic discipline of linguistics long ago abandoned prescriptivism in favor of a purely descriptive approach to the study of language. The job of the linguist is not to tell people how they're supposed to use language, but to observe and to describe how they actually do use language. So, the current norm within the field of linguistics is descriptivist -- prescriptivism is frowned upon. That's well and good for scholars whose objective is to advance our knowledge about language. But when we step outside of the academic field of linguistics into the broader society of language users, the norm against prescriptivism becomes much harder to defend. Outside of the academy there are many ends that society is trying to pursue other than the advancement of knowledge; and the pursuit of those ends often requires a certain degree of prescriptivism when it comes to how people communicate. So, when linguists try to impose the norms of their academic discipline on society at large, they are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of those norms within the academy, and of the differences between academic and non-academic norms.

The most common argument that descriptivists offer against any form of prescriptivism is that, because language is always evolving -- because the generally accepted conventions of grammar, usage, punctuation, pronunciation, spelling, and the elements of style change over time -- there is no such thing as a "correct" form of the language that anyone can point to and say that this is how everyone ought to speak or write. But this argument is patently absurd. Law is also in a continuous state of evolution, changing each time a new piece of legislation is passed and each time a new judicial precedent is set by the courts; yet no one would be so foolish as to suggest that because legal rules change over time they can be ignored. Just because a rule isn't carved in stone for all eternity doesn't mean that it's not a valid rule today.

If you don't like comparing language to law, then how about music? Musical styles have changed a lot over the centuries; and at any given time there are countless musical styles for composers, performers, and listeners to choose from. But, in spite of all this change and variety, there are still rules that composers and performers need to follow -- rules of harmony, rhythm, chord progression, etc. -- if they want to avoid producing cacophonous noise that is grating on the ears. Experimental composers may choose to violate any or all of these rules on occasion for creative purposes; but that doesn't mean that the rules don't exist, are not valid, or ought to be ignored. The fact that groundbreaking musicians like John Cage and Thelonious Monk would often break the rules for artistic effect does not imply that music instructors should stop teaching those rules, that musicians should stop trying to follow them most of the time, or that music listeners should stop preferring music that follows the rules over music that doesn't. Yes, the rules do change over time; and, yes, there are situations in which an accomplished artist who has already mastered the accepted rules of the day will want to experiment with breaking them in an attempt to create something innovative and unexpected. But there are rules, nonetheless; and they ought to be acknowledged and respected, even in the breach.

If we treat language like law or music, then we must accept three things: (1) The rules will change over time -- this is perfectly natural, and is not a bad thing that ought to be resisted. (2) People will, from time to time, bend or break the rules for various reasons; and they will sometimes be justified in doing so. (3) Yet, in spite of the fact that rules change over time and are frequently broken, rules do exist; and they serve a legitimate purpose. They ought to be taught. They ought to be followed in most situations. And people who habitually ignore them out of ignorance or apathy ought to be corrected.

We really need to take a middle-ground position between the excessive strictness of the prescriptivists and the excessive laxness of the descriptivists -- we need to recognize and respect the diversity in how people use language, as the descriptivists argue; but we also need to promote and maintain certain minimum standards of proper language use, as the prescriptivists demand. The descriptivists are correct to point out that language sticklers often take their prescriptivism too far. We really do need to get rid of all those moribund rules of grammar, usage, punctuation, and style that don't help people communicate more effectively, but merely serve as shibboleths for language snobs. Pedantic proscriptions, such as the pointless rule against beginning a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, are not helpful. But rules that are designed to facilitate clarity and minimize the chances of misunderstanding are essential. We, as a society, can't just blithely accept all forms of speech and writing, no matter how far removed from the norm, as being equally "proper". Vernacular is perfectly fine in informal settings; and sticklers are misguided in trying to suppress it. But to insist that non-standard dialects ought to be accorded equal status with the standard dialect -- not merely by scholars studying how language is used, but by the broader society outside of the academy -- is equally misguided. Language is, by its very nature, a communal activity. If we want to communicate with others, we can't be like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass" and insist on using language idiosyncratically, with no regard for conventional usage. In order for it to function at all, language has to operate according to certain basic, agreed-upon rules. Subcultures within the broader society are, and ought to be, free to use their own unique vernaculars as a means of cementing their group identity. But the broader society needs to maintain its own community standards for the use of language in order to facilitate clear communication between all of its members, so that it doesn't completely fragment into a conglomeration of isolated identity groups that can't understand one another. It's not authoritarian prescriptivism to insist that "your" does not mean "you are", or to assert that the greengrocer's apostrophe is not a "variant form", but is simply wrong. Perhaps some day in the not-too-distant future "your" will be the accepted shortened form for "you are", and apostrophes will routinely be used when forming non-possessive plurals. But, until then, we as a society have every right to insist that writers follow the accepted language conventions of the day; and, therefore, sticklers are justified in offering gentle corrections whenever someone violates those conventions, and even the occasional tut-tut aimed at the most egregious and unrepentant violators.

The dogmatic descriptivists will have none of this, of course. For them, prescriptivism of any kind is a form of snobbery -- if not outright bigotry -- symptomatic of a conservative mindset that values authority, hierarchy, and stability over all else, and that has little use for diversity or progress. To be fair, this view is not entirely without justification, since conservatism and sticklerism often do seem to go hand in hand; and the worst excesses of prescriptivism -- such as the condemnation of non-standard forms of the language spoken by ethnic minorities -- do seem to be found mainly on the political right. But one doesn't have to be a right-winger to cringe at the flagrant abuses of language that have become all too common among today's youth, or to balk at the attitude that many young people seem to have nowadays that anyone who reads extensively is a nerd, anyone who writes well is pretentious, and anyone who speaks articulately is "selling out". Language lovers are not being snobs or bigots -- nor are they being particularly conservative -- when they voice a preference for fluent speech and eloquent writing over inarticulate speech and slipshod writing, any more than music lovers are being snobs, bigots, or conservatives when they admit that they'd much rather listen to professionally trained musicians who've honed their skills through years of practice than to unskilled performers who only know three chords and can't sing on key without Auto-Tune. It's not a matter of snobbery, bigotry, or even conservatism; it's simply a matter of acknowledging that language, like music, is a learned skill that takes effort to acquire, and even more effort to master. Like any skill, the more you work at it, the better you get at it; and the better you get at it, the more you can do with it. We ought to be encouraging young people to put in the effort necessary to develop this important skill, not lowering our standards of what is considered adequate in order to spare our children the bother of having to learn how to speak and write well.

In the final chapter, the author seems to moderate his position a bit -- at least enough to concede the wisdom of the sort of middle-ground position I have been arguing for, which avoids both extremes, rejecting authoritarian as well as nihilistic views of language. (If not for this last minute change of tune I would certainly have given this book three rather than four stars.) But this concession comes so late, and is made so briefly and so feebly, that it simply cannot negate the force of the author's earlier, untempered attacks on even the mildest forms of prescriptivism. If he truly held to a middle-ground position, as I do, then he should have defended it from the very beginning rather than starting out from one extreme and then inching towards the middle in a halfhearted gesture of conciliation. But that's the problem with polemics. Whenever you write a book that argues for a particular point of view against an opposing point of view, you inevitably run the risk of sounding more extreme than you ever intended to be. And that is my main problem with this book. I have a sneaking suspicion that, apart from a few quibbles here and there about whether certain words are "untranslatable" or about the extent to which language shapes thought, the author and I actually agree about more things than we disagree about when it comes to the subject of language. But the tone of his polemic is so extreme (at least in the early chapters) that it only serves to give the (hopefully false) impression that our respective views about language are much farther apart than they actually are. And, in my opinion, that is unfortunate.

(My apologies for the extreme length of this review; but I've felt the need to rant about this particular topic for some time now. This book just gave me the opportunity to do so in a public forum. I've probably done a disservice to the author, who I'm sure wrote this book with the best of intentions. My rant wasn't intended exclusively for him, but for all the countless linguists -- be they scholars, students, or amateurs -- I've encountered over the years who have expressed similar views. The author's polemical tone merely acted as a catalyst, triggering a reaction in me that was bound to happen sooner or later, since all of the necessary ingredients have been simmering together in my brain for quite a while.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
By Robert Lane Greene You Are What You Speak

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy By Robert Lane Greene You Are What You Speak by Robert Lane Greene (ISBN: 8601407097963) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, published in 1755, marked a milestone in a language in desperate need of standards. No English dictionary before it had devoted so much space to everyday words, been so thorough in its definitions, or illustrated usage by quoting from Shakespeare and other great writers. Johnson's was the dictionary used by Jane Austen and Charles Dickens, Wordsworth and Coleridge, the Brontës and the Brownings, Thomas Hardy and Oscar Wilde. This new edition, edited by David Crystal, will contain a selection from the original, offering memorable passages on subjects ranging from books and critics to dreams and ethics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Dictionary of the English Language: an Anthology (Penguin Classics)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, published in 1755, marked a milestone in a language in desperate need of standards. No English dictionary before it had devoted so much space to everyday words, been so thorough in its definitions, or illustrated usage by quoting from Shakespeare and other great write...

# data[].attributes.headline
Recommended further reading by the chief examiner

# data[].attributes.subject
Recommended further reading by the chief examiner

# data[].attributes.headline
Useful A Level book by the chief examiner 

# data[].attributes.subject
Useful A Level book by the chief examiner 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beth Kemp studied Modern Languages at the University of Leicester, taking an MA in Gender Studies and Literature at the University of Warwick before training as a teacher.

Most of her teaching career has focused on Secondary English, specifically A Level, and she has developed a specialism in English Language at this level, running a study and revision website originally intended for her own students but soon discovered by students and teachers around the UK. She has enjoyed a wide range of experience teaching adults, sixth formers and secondary pupils in subjects including French, Italian, English and Gender Studies.

Currently, Beth lives in Leicester with her family - which includes dogs, guinea pigs and gerbils - and divides her time between writing and teaching.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AQA AS and A Level English Language Student Book (AQA A Level English 2104)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This AQA AS and A Level English Language Student Book prepares students and teachers for the requirements of the AQA A Level English Language specification. Structured and written to build on skills students acquired at GCSE, this book helps students to develop the skills needed to succeed in the...

# data[].attributes.headline
Revision guides for all aspects of the course

# data[].attributes.subject
Revision guides for all aspects of the course

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English language A level - independent study guide

# data[].attributes.headline
Supporting Textbook (no need to purchase...)

# data[].attributes.subject
Supporting Textbook (no need to purchase...)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new series of bespoke, full-coverage resources developed for the 2015 A Level English qualifications. Endorsed for the AQA A/AS Level English Language specifications for first teaching from 2015, this print Student Book is suitable for all abilities, providing stretch opportunities for the more able and additional scaffolding for those who need it. Helping bridge the gap between GCSE and A Level, the unique three-part structure provides essential knowledge and allows students to develop their skills through a deeper study of key topics, whilst encouraging independent learning. An enhanced digital version and free Teacher's Resource are also available.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A/AS Level English Language for AQA Student Book (A Level (AS) English Language AQA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new series of bespoke, full-coverage resources developed for the 2015 A Level English qualifications. Endorsed for the AQA A/AS Level English Language specifications for first teaching from 2015, this print Student Book is suitable for all abilities, providing stretch opportunities for the more...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
KS5 Curriculum Overview - English Language (1)

# data[].attributes.body
The Complete Guide...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We’re sorry
An error occurred when we tried to process your request.We’re working on the problem and expect to resolve it shortly. Please note that if you were trying to place an order, it will not have been processed at this time. Please try again later.
We apologise for the inconvenience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ACHIEVE ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN A-LEVEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE!

This book has been designed to help students with their study of A-Level English Language. It follows the AQA specification and scheme of assessment. It covers both exams and the non-exam assessment. The book contains:

Language level information - learn and revise how to apply language levels - including lexis, semantics, pragmatics, graphology, orthography, discourse structure and phonology.

Theory - learn and revise all the key concepts, ideas and theories for each topic area - the book contains OVER 150 THEORIES!

Exam walkthrough - learn how to answer EVERY QUESTION on the exam.

Mock exam questions - practice and test your knowledge and skills by using one of the mock questions - there are over 40 to choose from!

Model essay plans - see how to plan an effective essay for every topic area.

Model essays - see how an actual A* student writes essays and gets the marks.

Glossary - learn and revise all the key terms you need to know - there's over 200 of them!

Please note: this book is not endorsed by or affiliated with AQA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ultimate Revision Guide for AQA A-Level English Language

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy The Ultimate Revision Guide for AQA A-Level English Language by Hollins, Tom (ISBN: 9798638203207) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

# data[].attributes.body
You will need an A4 file to store your notes, along with lined paper and stationery that includes the following: Pens and pencils, Highlighter pen, Ruler, Calculator, Protractor, Compass

# data[].attributes.headline
Finding your way to the 'Super-curricular' information via our CSF website

# data[].attributes.subject
Finding your way to the 'Super-curricular' information via our CSF website