3,298 words

Even though it does not receive quite as much attention as it deserves, one important aspect of the Cultural Revolution in the 60s is the sudden rise and rapid dominance of “descriptivism” in academia, education, and editorial staff in dictionaries, usage guides, and grammar manuals. As summarized in “The Mockery of Language I: The Farce of Shifting, Customizable Pronouns” and discussed at greater length in “Descriptivism Defied,” a defining feature of descriptivist grammar is that a lexicon or grammar must only set out to describe or catalog language however it is written or spoken.  This descriptivist approach to grammar and usage rejects what its proponents regard as “value judgments,” particularly in relation to non-standard dialects, and especially dialects peculiar to racial minorities and other “marginalized peoples.” Under the descriptivist approach, it is “impermissible to say one form of language is any better than another; as long as a native speaker says it” or writes it, regardless of education, such an utterance is just as valid as any other (Wallace pg 81). In “Making Peace in the Language Wars,” Bryan Garner describes the situation thusly:

Through the latter half of the 20th century and still today, there has been an academic assault on linguistic standards. Today the remark “That’s not good English” would likely be met with the rejoinder, “Says who?” (234)

A central motivation, indeed probably the central motivation, behind the descriptivist creed stems from the explicit assertion that prescriptivist[1] grammar and its underlying values disadvantages or stigmatizes people of color and other marginalized people. It is for this reason, first and foremost, that the descriptivist crusade is waged against prescriptivism. And to a large extent that most insidious crusade has succeeded. Descriptivism has become so dominant it has become increasingly difficult to find reputable essays, tracts, and books that advocate a classical prescriptivist perspective on issues of grammar and usage.[2] The descriptivist disease has led to many unsavory developments in language and culture, including dictionaries endorsing common misconceptions about meanings of words (that is, endorse wrong or erroneous meanings) and misspellings (Fiske 5, 7). One of the central tenets of descriptivism, that languages change, that all change is either necessarily good or that any change is neither good nor bad, but simply is inevitable and cannot and should not be stopped. This dubious rationale has been used to justify redefinitions of “gender” as well as “singular they” for a known person, both in order to advance ideological ends associated with transgender and radical gender ideology: a most peculiar development because these changes in meaning advocated by the left have actually been affected through a new sort of prescriptivism by the left.[3]

Decades ago, descriptivist outrage at prescriptivist grammar stemmed as much from concerns about class warfare as it did race. In “Why Linguists Should Not Be Trusted On Language Usage,” Mark Halpern examines descriptivism critically by focusing on an essay by Stanford Linguist Professor Geoffrey Nunberg, “The Decline of Grammar.” In this critical examination, Halpern describes descriptivism’s “democratic objection” to prescriptivism thusly; that prescriptivism is an insidious effort “to foist the linguistic practices. . . of the educated, affluent, fortunate members of society on the less educated and affluent members of society. . ..” David Foster Wallace even goes so far as to contend that, under the descriptivist view, because “traditional English is conceived and perpetuated by privileged [white] males,” it is therefore “inherently capitalist, sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, elitist…” (81, emphasis added). And as the descriptivist creed has become more and more entrenched in various cultural institutions, issues of race have become more and more pronounced in descriptivist rhetoric and dogma. This has culminated with the absurdity that “Today the teaching of standard English is

even being labeled discriminatory.” (Garner). While “discrimination in terms of race, color, religion, or gender” is not accepted in mainstream society, some elements in the left lament that “the last bastion of overt social discrimination will continue to be a person’s use of language” (Milroy, 64-65)—and it is that last bastion that the adherents of cultural Marxism generally and descriptivists specifically have been assaulting for some time.

As just one example among legion, race is a central theme in “Ideology, Power, and Linguistic Theory,” in which George Pollum comments at length about the failed effort by the Oakland School District to officially recognized Ebonics, otherwise known to Pollum and others of his ilk as “African American Vernacular English” (or AAVE). It is noteworthy that in this essay Pollum holds conservatism and anything remotely considered to the right with disdain. Expressly asserting a “link between the stance of the prescriptive ideologues and actual political conservativism,” Pollum ridicules prescriptivism, stating: “[Prescriptivist rules] seem less worthy of being taken seriously than the absurdly obvious warnings printed on the packaging” of various products in America. Indeed, he dismisses what he identifies as the principles of prescriptivism as merely the “buzzwords of political conservatism. . .” (9).

In the Grammar Revolution, Aram DeKoven, then Professor of Education at University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, regards the very idea of Standard English with absolute contempt. Only reluctantly conceding that Standard English should be taught to certain racial minorities because it is necessary for social and career advancement, he would prefer to jettison any such standards altogether. He brazenly declares “in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be a standard” (because standards are racist and oppressive). “There would be many different ways to express one’s self, rather than a [single] standard” with no standard being elevated over any other. He then states that any such standard should be regarded with “suspicion”:

I am not a person of color, but if I tried with all my might to imagine myself in the shoes of a person of color, I would look at a standard with suspicion. Who gets to define what is or isn’t standard English? It is quite possible writing could be racist if it doesn’t value or embrace the way certain students express themselves.

One wonders how one can imagine anything with all his “might.” Be that as it may, when asked what he would call Standard English, he replies:

Whenever you say standard, I’m thinking about who was at the table when it came time to define [that] standard and I’m really skeptical about that group of people because I’m already envisioning a group of folks… who are just wealthy, white, landowners.

This is madness, although it does reveal further just how deep the pathology of ethno-masochism runs in the institutions of Europe and the West, although, as is often the case, DeKoven is Jewish, obviously, as are Pinker and Nunberg, among others. Imagine academics in China or Russia impugning and disparaging the standard languages of those civilizations because leading Chinese or Russian figures were “at the table” when dictionaries or other authorities and standards were established in their respective civilizations. Once can scarcely imagine esteemed academic, professors, and writers of the Occident indulging such lunacy before 1945.

Unfortunately, such overt hostility to standards in English (and presumably other European languages) is by no means an outlier or exception. An English teacher in high school rightly gained some measure of infamy in this rant where she denounces rules of grammar, style and usage as “white supremacy.” The book she cites, Linguistic Justice: Black Language, Literacy, Identity, and Pedagogy, by April Baker-Bell is doubtlessly one of many such execrable screeds better suited as fire kindling than reading material.

Nor are such sentiments new, although they have certainly worsened over the years. In “Authority and American Usage,” Wallace recounts how he treated this very subject, namely teaching what he calls “Standard Written English,” particularly in relation to black students. In this portion of the essay, he shares what he would typically tell Freshman black students on reviewing written papers that reveal a poor grasp of (standard) English while exhibiting many signs of various black dialects. (Wallace, 108-109) His talk is compassionate, but frank, stating whether a student likes it or not, educated people need to learn this “dialect,” even noting that all influential black leaders, authors, and other public figures learned to use this “dialect.” How did some black students reward him for his kindness and patience? Two students were “offended.” Another, a black woman, filed an official complaint against him, alleging racial prejudice, which resulted in a formal inquiry and hearing by university administrators. This complaint was lodged in spite of some fairly shameless pandering, which includes:

• likening blacks struggling with “Standard Written English” as akin to being expected to learn a foreign language that that person does not know. Standard English is no such thing, provided blacks can turn on the evening news and understand it. A foreign language would be a language someone either does not speak at all or is studying at a novice or intermediary level as, well, a foreign language;


• English teachers who have downgraded the black student being counseled should not write down-grading remarks as this or that grammatical or other error, but as an error in Standard Written English, a dialect;


• disparages, denigrates, or relativizes “Standard Written English,” by stating e.g., “In class—in my English class—you will have to master and write in Standard Written English, which we might just as well call ‘Standard White English’ because it was developed by white people and is used by white people, especially educated, powerful white people.”

Later, while maintaining that “The complainant was (I opine) wrong,” he makes various excuses and even blames himself, “not with the argument per se but with the person making it—namely me, a [p]rivileged WASP Male in a position of power. . ..” (117). It is of note the department chair and dean did not “share [the complainant’s reaction] and that their status as “privilege white males” was remarked on by the complainant, such that the whole proceeding got pretty darn tense indeed, before it was over.” (117 footnote 73).

These and other anecdotes remind one of “The White Man’s Burden” by Rudyard Kipling. Perhaps. instead of going to such lengths to provide blacks with some semblance of a classical education, only to be scorned and resented for it, as not endeavoring to teach blacks proper English would also be racist, maybe all of this bolsters a much more radical view, that our society—and particularly white Europeans— would be better off if there was a divorce between these two disparate, incompatible races. If only well-meaning whites would stop insisting in engaging in such a thankless, impossible task altogether.

The racial tensions ignited simply by teaching (or attempting to teach) black students proper English raise the question whether educators and linguists are right in limiting their justification for teaching proper English in the way they invariably do, namely that this “dialect” should only be taught because it is universally accepted, even though that universal acceptance is “arbitrary,” or part of “power structures” and “systemic racism.” Consider this novel theory: that standard dialects of English, such as Standard Written English in America and Received Pronunciation in Great Britain, are objectively superior, if not to all dialects, at least to spoken black dialects and other dialects that have not exactly produced great written works through the ages.

The descriptivist mantra of course dictates that no dialect spoken as a mother tongue is any better or worse than other dialects in the same overall language. Descriptivists often refer to grammar in terms of evolutionary psychology. In Language and Human Nature, Halpern correctly distinguishes this descriptivist view of “grammar” as “generative grammar,” a “grammar” populated by the way that language is hard-wired in the human brain, in accordance with the principles of evolutionary psychology. It is on this faulty premise that descriptivists assert that so-called black spoken English, also known as African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is just as valid as standard English because it conforms to this generative grammar.[4] This is in stark contrast to how grammar is understood by prescriptivists and the educated public large, which regards grammar as a system of rules governing how a language is spoken and written.

Specious reasoning, particularly as this generative grammar is different than what is understood as grammar by prescriptivists and the educated public at large. No inquiry by this author has revealed any robust examination or academic study as to what linguistic and other expressive limitations exist in various black dialects. Just as no academic institution in the modern world would explore in good faith how traumatic sexual events are linked to homosexuality, it is obvious that no linguistic or psychology department would ever make a serious inquiry as to whether the limitations of black vernacular in vocabulary and other short comings also result in severe limitations in expressive power—i.e. could one write a sophisticated essay on the grammar wars or a paper examining the engineering principles and designs of a jet engine in “African American Vernacular English?” Halpern suggests—but only suggests— the possibility, likelihood even, that “Standard Written English” is objectively superior in terms of its ability to convey ideas and what can be expressed or articulated in different dialects. He bolsters this suggestion, but ultimately only offers it as a suggestion rather than as an assertion, by citing the size of vocabulary possessed by black and other non-standard dialects (the real question is the typical vocabulary of most blacks in both their limited grasp of Standard Written English and any given non-standard black vernacular). To bolster this suggestion, he also reminds the reader of the vast array of written works, music, and film in Standard English as compared to works in black English. For those who have read Nineteen Eighty-Four, recall that the epilogue noted that Newspeak contributed to the downfall of the INGSOC regime because the linguistic deficits hampered scientific advancement, among other problems. This principle, whereby a language must possess a vocabulary of a certain breadth to express more complex and sophisticated ideas, reveals how absurd the shuck-and-jive suggestion is that ghetto black lingo or dialectics are just as valid as proper English.

A central premise of the descriptivist creed of course is that the evil of prescriptivist grammar is that certain groups of people, namely ruling class whites (and of course “fellow whites”) have greater access to education than poor or middle-class working people do, although of course such rhetoric has yielded more and more to concerns about the nebulous, undefinable specter of “systemic racism,” as black victimization ideology, critical race theory, and the like have enjoyed increasing prominence in academic talking points generally and descriptivist and linguistic talking points specifically. In relation to poor, working class whites (and Asians and other less troublesome demographic groups) there is some kernel of truth to that, but on the other hand families committed to education can, with diligence and dedication, instill in their children the importance of academic excellence as well as the importance of learning how to speak and write well. In regards to many blacks (there are of course always outliers), the evidence is really piling up that there is another dynamic to their poor academic performance and general scholastic recalcitrance that explains why they are such a pain (collectively) to teach, among other things, proper English. Two-standard deviations below average white IQ, vastly disproportionate rates of violent crime, civilizational failure wherever they have been in charge or even present in sufficient numbers, among other considerations all indicate that the genetic die has been cast, and that it is this genetic die that makes teaching blacks proper English and so many other things so nettlesome. This is of course exacerbated and compounded by an odious black cultural milieu, a so-called “culture” that stigmatizes those in the black in-group for applying themselves in school, that regards whites with racial resentment of hatred regardless of how well-meaning whites are, and regardless of what actions they take[5] to try and atone for their imagined original sin on issues of race.

The role of blacks and black victimization ideology—as well as far left, cultural Marxism that panders to blacks as an “oppressed group” and enables this black victimization ideology—can add this deleterious effect on our language and education as yet another deficit on society inflicted by the curse of multiculturalism. Along with the “racial commitment to crime” exemplified in vastly disproportionate rates of violent crime and incarceration, the net fiscal deficit each black represents on average to greater society, the wildly destructive and murderous race riots that come around every so often, among the many other wonderous splendors of multiculturalism and diversity, our society and culture must endure that mad dogma that asserts any and all usage is just as valid as another, the mad folly of conflating valid entries in dictionaries with erroneous definitions and misspellings.

Next time some dangerhair gender “non-binary” or transgender freak carries on about the linguistic and literary vandalism they favor in regards to “gender,” or “singular they,” or supposedly customized pronouns, or the mockery they have made of words like “man,” and “woman,” remember the motivations and assumptions underlying the descriptivist plague that ignited it all. The same rationale of course applies when encountering the sort of people who write with excessive use of the word “like” as a filler word and who constantly use “literally,” not even in a figurative sense contrary to its proper definition, but as a vague non-descript intensifier, one of any number of linguistic abominations not just permitted but sanctioned by descriptivism. All of this is because, to at least some extent, these leftist academics and black activists fretted that an English teacher of the old-school, grammar Nazi variety might make a black student feel bad, indignant, or inferior because of low grades stemming from a refusal, inability, or reluctance to learn proper English.

Notes

[1] Of course, descriptivism and prescriptivism are not mutually exclusive to one another in an absolute sense. A dictionary should accurately describe the meaning of a word and how it is used, provided that the meaning and usage are long-standing, widely accepted, and, put bluntly, correct. As argued in “Descriptivism Defied,’ just because a word is often misspelled or used incorrectly does not mean such errors should be sanctioned in authoritative dictionaries. To do so erodes the clarity and precision of our language and interferes with our collective ability to speak and write clearly and eloquently.

[2] One of the most famous essays in defense of prescriptivism is arguably the late David Foster Wallace’s “Authority and American Usage” (also available here with page numbers cited in this essay). Language and Human Nature by Mark Halpern is also generally recommended, as are the writings of the late Robert Fiske, editor of the Vocabula Bound series and writer of several books, including A Dictionary of Endurable English . Bryan Garner, who wrote the dictionary Wallace attempted to review generally takes a prescriptivist approach, although his views on singular they are somewhat disappointing.

[3] This is argued at length in “This Mockery of Language II: Gender Redefined,” which demonstrates that the definition of “gender advocated by transgender and radical gender theory activists has been prescribed by Webster’s and other dictionaries. See also “The Liberal Case Against Pronouns” by Andrew Doyle (he of course means customized pronouns). David Foster Wallace also discusses this new tendency (110).

[4] That of course is a tautological—and therefore meaningless—statement, because every spoken language conforms to this generative grammar mapped in the human brain.

[5] (and have taken since over half a million died fighting the civil war to free them, and the Reconstruction, and then the Civil Rights and Great Society fiascoes, and then, and then, and then)