A look into the past of grammar criticism

by Derek Spencer

Language changes — this is a fact with which we're all acquainted. It seems also that for as long as humans have used language, humans have decried each subsequent generation's mangling of the written word. Some commentators have discussed the "decline" of the English language in strident tones; others have taken a more measured, thoughtful tack.

As for the question of whether Geoffrey Nunberg is in the former or latter camp, well, we'll leave you to decide. In this sweeping article, written nearly thirty years ago, Nunberg discusses the history of grammatical analysis and compares the approaches taken by prescriptivists (those who insist that grammatical rules are hard and fast) and descriptivists (those who hold that rules depend on practical usage by the speaking and writing population). Here's a link to the article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97mar/halpern/nunberg.htm

The history lesson is probably the most fascinating part of the piece, but also of interest are the author's examples of language misuse from his time. Thirty years is a relatively short time, but some of the uses the author identifies as improper are now firmly cemented within standard English.

What do you think? Do you side more with the linguists who believe that language is flexible and that's fine, or do you place your trust in the prescriptive grammarians?

Derek Spencer is a Marketing Communications Associate at Prestwick House.

"Literally" literally has the same meaning as "figuratively" -- according to Google

by Derek Spencer

Citizens of the Internet seem to be up in arms about what happens when you enter "define literally" into Google search. Google's definition for "literally" now encompasses both literal and figurative usage, something that, well, seems ridiculous on its face. Here's a short article:

http://io9.com/society-crumbles-as-google-admits-literally-now-means-1134793489

Though this sounds terrible if you're an English language prescriptivist, literally has apparently been used to mean figuratively for quite a long time — as one of the commenters on the linked article helpfully explains.

In the eyes of Google, "literally" is now an auto-antonym: a word that has two contradictory meanings. The very idea of auto-antonyms (also known as autantonyms, enantiodromes, and/or contronyms) is fascinating, as the meaning of an auto-antonym cannot be known outside its context.

Some other auto-antonyms in English:

• Ravel - to disentangle OR to tangle
• Fast - moving quickly OR stuck (as in "held fast")
• Rent - to lend to OR to borrow from

Language is always changing, so it's no surprise that some are sanctioning this usage of "literally, but it definitely sticks in the craw of some people.

Where do you fall on the spectrum? Are you a strict prescriptivist? Or do you think common usage determines meaning?

Derek Spencer is a Marketing Communications Associate at Prestwick House.