criteria of correctness

8/8/2019 Criteria of Correctness

1/9

Criteria of CorrectnessAuthor(s): Karl W. DykemaSource: College English, Vol. 1, No. 7 (Apr., 1940), pp. 616-623Published by: National Council of Teachers of EnglishStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/371244

Accessed: 02/11/2010 15:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncte.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

College English.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/371244?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/371244?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncte


2/9

616 COLLEGENGLISHMy final illustrationwas written by an eighteen-year-oldgirl onthe same subject, "What I Expect from College,"and is the con-clusion of her paper. It must be rememberedthat this, like allpapersquoted,was writtenimpromptu,with no previousknowledgeof topics to be assigned.The acquirement f knowledges probably he most obviousand the pri-maryendwhicha studentexpectsto gainin a university.I hopeto assimilatenot only the elementaryact of knowledge,but to absorb nto my being thesubtleandfar-reachingffectsof study. Themostnoticeable f theseeffects sa more ntensified owerof mind,andwith this intensificationomesquietude

-a calmnessand surenessof perception.Thesequalities use themselves ntothat essentialharmonyof spiritand brain-perspective.This harmony,oncegained,actsas a protectivewall.....Because hesefouryearsmustnecessarily e onlya foundation, want thatwallaboutthe innercenterof my mind to remain trongbut flexible.I wantto avoida dogmaticconception f ideas-I want expansion o be trulyin thenatureof progress.....I want to developa serenityof spirit,a serenity hat is not stagnation. Iwant to developpowersof discipline nd assimilation. do not expectto findTruthquiescentlyawaitingme at the end of a neat little fouryear academiccourse,but I doexpect o be lessvague nmy search orher.

A student who can write thus effectivelywould be wasting timein an elementarycompositioncourse. To separatesuchwritingfromthe generalrun and to set the writerin the path where his progresswill be unimpededby the crowdis the duty we owe superiorstu-dents.

CRITERIA OF CORRECTNESSKARL W. DYKEMA'

The function of language, it seems obvious enough, is communi-cation. But it may also have other functions. It may provide emo-tional release, act as a sort of oral gesture, or serve as a touchstonefor social position. And for each of these functions there is a stand-ard of acceptability, and criteria for determiningthat standard.Much of the confusion in discussions of correctness may be attrib-uted to the failure to restrictthe applicationof these criteria o theirappropriate unctions.

'A member of the department of English, Youngstown College


3/9

CRITERIAOF CORRECTNESS 617When language functions solely as a means of communication,the standardof acceptabilityis comprehensibility.The questioniswhether speakeror writer has selected those word symbols whichmost effectively and efficientlycommunicatehis ideas and has ar-ranged them in the most effective and efficientmanner. This cri-terioncan hardlybe used, therefore, o condemnsuch constructionsas ain't, he don't, the double negative, and the most reprehendedconstructionsof the illiterate in so far as they are readily compre-hensible to the grammaticallyelect-who, to be sure,will be some-

what reluctant to acknowledgetheir understandingof the vulgartongue.The languageof emotionalrelease ncludes n its vocabularywordsof such intense connotativeforce that the grammarianhas usuallyhesitated to dealwith them;instead,he has handedthem over to themoralistwho brands them as morallyreprehensible.Profanity,ob-scenity, blasphemy-all have their standardsof acceptability,andmost people understandpretty well how to observe those stand-ards. There is little printed discussionof this function of language,however,partlybecause the criteriaarelargelyemotionaland hencedifficult to analyze and partly because the words are seldom al-lowed to appear n print. Acceptabilityvaries with usage just as itdoes with other words and phrases. This is amply illustratedby acomparisonbetween a respectableeighteenth-centurynovel and arespectableVictoriannovel.By oral gesture I mean the spoken nothings that correspond oconventionalgesturesof greeting. When an acquaintancepassesonthe other side of the street a tip of the hat or a wave of the armissufficient;but if he is met on the same sidewalka furthergreetingis expected: "Hello. How d'ye do? Nice day"-as completelyvoidof literal significanceas the gesture. The criteriafor this functionhave largely escapedformal discussion and are learnedby uncon-sciousobservationof our fellows.Often languageserves as a shibboleth. The manner of speech-includingpronunciation,of course-is used as a meansof determin-ing whethera speakerbelongsto the right class. And here is wherethe grammar-book tandardof correctnessbecomes important. Asthe greatmajorityof peopleresortto variousbooksof etiquette forauthoritative nformationon correctsocialconduct,so they go to the


4/9

618 COLLEGENGLISHgrammarsand handbooksfor authoritative informationon correctconduct n language. Manualsof correctEnglishare codificationsoflanguageetiquette just as etiquette books are codificationsof rulesof conduct. And just as the criteriaof correctness n social conductare based on a numberof complicatedsocial attitudes, so the cri-teria of correctness n language have been based on a variety ofattitudes towardlanguage.The criteriaof correctness n languagevary, therefore,with thejudge. So long as these criteriawerebasedprincipallyupon analogywith the classical anguages,an appealto formal ogic, or even merepersonal preference, here was some possibility of agreement,sincethere was little contact with the realities of language itself. Butwhen usage was acknowledged-but not consistentlyaccepted-asa criterion,any possibilityof uniformitydisappeared;orby appeal-ing to the authorityof usagea constructioncould be defendedwhichon certain logical grounds might be condemned-for example, theundeniably widespreaduse of is beingbuilt by good writers andspeakersdespite the logical objection to it. Yet for all its absurdi-ties correctEnglishis of vital importance. It is an easy--and oftenextremely unjust-means of forming a superficialestimate of anindividual.The only absolute standard of correctnessin language is thehearer'sor reader'ssenseof linguistic propriety;only that is correctwhich is felt or believedto be correct. This means,in effect,a differ-ent standardfor every listener: isn't may be as sociallyinexpedientin one language situation as ain't in another; to respond to theproposalof a charivari,pronounced[SIvarI], ith the pronunciation[Sarivarr]s not only socially nexpedientbut decidedlybad manners.The difficultyof determining he appropriateusage for each lan-guagesituationis often considerable.Mere rulesof correctnesscan-not be reliedupon. Every individualmust developa sensitivity towhat is linguisticallyappropriate o each situation. And to do thishe must be consciousof the severalfunctionsof language.

The teachermust distinguishbetweenthese functionsof languageandapplyin eachsituationonly those criteriawhich areappropriateto it. A few exampleswill illustratethat this may not alwaysbe sosimple as it sounds, mainly becauseof certainhabitual approaches


5/9

CRITERIAOF CORRECTNESS 619which have been developed on the basis of analogy with Latin orrespect for a certain superficial formal logic.It is a dangerous fallacy to assume that the logic which underliesthe communication of ideas is necessarily identical with the super-ficial logic which is concerned only with the formal aspects of wordsor syntax. Grammar is logical only so far as it succeeds in analyzingthe logic implicit in the language it is describing. And that logicis often extremely difficult to analyze. (Consider, for example, Jes-persen's extended discussions of the relationships he calls "junction"and "nexus.") In those instances where a formally illogical con-struction is indubitably correct the purist must in desperation fallback on the term "idiom," or simply ignore the construction. (Makesure and get away are called idioms; the formal absurdity of you as asecond person singular nominative pronoun is simply ignored.) Butother equally common constructions are attacked because of somelogical flaw in them: These kind is condemned because these is plural,kind singular. But certainly the speaker who uses the constructionfeels kind to be a collective just as definitely as he feels people tobe one in these people. He only had a penny is condemned becauseof the "misplaced" only; but no one understands the phrase asmeaning he alone had a penny; if that notion were intended, alonewould be used. Yet the purist contends that the formal flaw in theseconstructions impedes communication. His habitual approach pre-vents him from applying the criterion of comprehensibility to theconstructions.

A few more elaborate applications of the criterion may be addedhere. In such a sentence as "He made one of the most sweeping anddevastating assaults upon the bad practices of labor and subcon-tractors and dealers that has ever been leveled against any publicevil" (John T. Flynn in the New Republic, July 26, 1939, p. 334),objection is made to the number of has on the ground that its sub-ject is that whose antecedent is the plural assaults. The purists loveto bemoan the prevalence of this construction. Wilson Follett writes("The State of the Language," Atlantic Monthly, January, 1937,p. 49): "I sometimes go for weeks without coming upon a singlecorrect specimen .... ." But is Follett justified in stating that "thethinking behind the sentence is clearly at fault"? Flynn wants to


6/9

620 COLLEGE NGLISHindicate that there has been a very sweeping and devastating as-sault. But a mere intensive like very does not possess sufficientforce to convey his meaning. He probably has no other similar as-saults specifically in mind, so that he is not really writing of one ofseveral; but, being a somewhat cautious journalist, he hesitates touse an unqualified superlative and write "He made the most sweep-ing and devastating assault ....." He feels he has achieved his pur-pose by using the forceful most qualified by the formula one of whosefunction is to change the superlative from absolute to relative.And, since he has in mind a single assault, he naturally makes hisverb singular to agree with the singular idea. Such an analysis willhardly make possible a neat diagram of the sentence; but it does,I think, explain the underlying logic of a sentence which is perfectlycomprehensible and at least moderately effective.

Similarly, the dangling construction which has no formal relation-ship to the rest of the sentence is often condemned on the groundthat it is ambiguous; and no doubt it often is. But is it so invari-ably ambiguous that it deserves to be dogmatically condemned?Some entirely respectable stock expressions are nothing more thandangling participles: strictly speaking, speaking of, considering hisage; owing to is now called a preposition. But there are many con-structions besides these which are quite unambiguous-in fact, per-fectly clear and less awkward than the alternative "correct" con-struction: "Driving down Riverside Drive, the Washington Bridgecan be seen in all its glory." To suggest that there is even the possi-bility of a momentary ambiguity here is as absurd as to insist thata double negative makes an affirmative.When the dangling construction is ambiguous, it should be con-demned as bad rhetoric rather than as bad syntax. And there are anumber of other constructions which might better be treated asmatters of style than as "bad grammar." The logical objection tothe split infinitive is, of course, nonsense (John B. Opdycke's fan-tastic discussion in Get It Right, for example. He draws a parallelbetween to quickly go and al-rapide-ler, geh-schnell-en, ir-celeriter-e[p. 174]), since historically to is not a part of the infinitive. Butrhetorically there may sometimes be legitimate objection to theconstruction, though there may be just as legitimate objection to


7/9

CRITERIA OF CORRECTNESS 621the failure to split (see Fowler'sintelligent and amusingdiscussionin his Dictionaryof ModernEnglish Usage). The same thing maybe said for the no-preposition-at-the-endulewhich is based on theanalogyof Latin, and the etymologyof the wordpreposition.Some-times a prepositionat the end is rhetoricallybad-and sometimesthe failureto put it there resultsin even worserhetoric: "The ques-tion of an equal repartitionof the cost of reparation,as well as ofthe interest and reimbursement f capital invested, is on what thewhole matter hinges." (The example s quoted by H. W. Fowlerina brief article, "Prepositionat End," in Society or Pure English,Tract XIV, where furtherillustrationsmay be found of what mayhappen as a result of attempting to write by rule.) The goal of ef-fective expressioncan be more readily achieved if the student ismade to see that a particulardanglingconstructionhe has used isless effectivethan anotherconstructionwould be. Simply to statedogmaticallythat a danglingconstruction s bad will not convincehim. He has used it too often without any resulting ambiguitytobe easily convincedthat it is an essentiallybad construction.The use of the formallyappropriatepronounis rarelynecessaryto the comprehensibilityof the sentence. When the formally im-properform is unexpected,as in Give it to he, a momentarycon-fusion may result;only, however,becauseof the unexpectednessofthe form and not because of any possibleambiguity. (It might bementionedin passing that apparentlyShakespearewould not evenhave felt it as unexpected.) In "Who didyou give it to?"the who snot only perfectly unambiguousbut quite expected. So there is nopossible basis for condemningthe construction on the ground ofincomprehensibility.In these illustrative examples I have attempted to apply thecriterionof comprehensibility o a few of the constructionscom-monly condemned n the orthodoxgrammar-books.There aremanymore,of course,which arelisted as "wrong"or "bad"becausetheyviolate logic or analogyor because they "are not clear." It wouldbe well for the teacher to apply the criterion of comprehensibilityto each proscribed usage and determine for himself whether itcauses a genuineinterferencewith communication.Are we, then, to throwout entirelyall the proscriptionsand pre-


8/9

622 COLLEGENGLISHscriptionswhichhave for so many years been so religiously aught?Alas, no! For some of them have stuck, and the rest have helpedto create a generalconviction that there is a right and a wrong nlanguage just as surely as there is in mathematics;and that thesociallyimportantpart of the communityobservesthe rules. "Ain'tyou got nothing at all?" is two syllables shorter, more emphatic,and quite as clear as "Haven'tyou anythingat all?" But in certaincircles the former would be unpardonable,conclusive evidence ofill-breeding.So it is only fair that the youngstersfrom the slumsshould know that the language spoken by the mother and fatherthey are supposedto honor is consideredby the best people to behopelesslyvulgarand illiterate.And here such an excellent study as Marckwardtand Walcott'sFactsaboutCurrentEnglish Usagedoes not helpverymuch. Forthescholarson whose work that book is based are guilty of a demo-cratic approachwhich the prescriptivegrammariansare quite in-nocent of. The would-be despotismof the lesser grammarians,asProfessorCurmeaptly labels them, is far more absolute than thatof any politicaldictator,for they believe that even the most carefuluserof Englishmay slip; whereasone can be a perfectNazi.Marckwardtand Walcott list ain'tI as colloquialEnglish;and noone who has listened carefullyto the casual speechof the average,intelligent,educatedAmericanwould deny that the classification saccurate. Whoas an object at the beginningof a sentence is alsolabeledcolloquialEnglish;and again the label is certainlyaccurate.But ain't I is much more dangerousto use, for it is a unit whichcan be spotted as easily as an oath. Accusative who,on the otherhand, can be recognizedonly by those who retain an elementaryability to parse and who can pay attention to the syntax as wellas to the sense;and they are certainlyfew. It becomes the duty ofthe teacher,then, to pointout that althoughboth ain'tI andaccusa-tive who are colloquialEnglish, it is expedientto use the firstverycircumspectly, he secondwith relative abandon.

A century and a half of dogmatic insistence on correctnesshasmade of language a touchstone for determiningwhether anotherperson may be admitted to our social, cultural, or professionalcircle. Despite its artificiality, its false foundations, its essential


9/9

THE COLLEGEOMNIBUS

THE COLLEGE OMNIBUSA. B. CUNNINGHAMI

I have before me samplesof an amorphousgiant which has re-cently sprung up for use in the college FreshmanEnglish course.It is generallyreferredo as an omnibusandmay best be understoodby direct examination.Here is Exhibit I. In its vast circumferenceof 1,o99 pages itcontainsautobiography, etters, travel, history, biography,the for-mal and the informalessay,portraitsandcharacter ketches, iterarycriticism, hortstories(onewrittenby a masterof execrableEnglish,with something ike forty-sevenmistakes to the page), two dramas,Conrad'sThe Nigger of the Narcissus, Hardy's The Returnof theNative,and poetry to the extent of nearly a hundredpages.

From such a statementof length and content the term"omnibus"begins to take form. It denotes a book which has everything. It isIA member of the committee of three which manages the English department ofTexas Technological College.

623snobbishness, t is a convenient, even an indispensablemeans ofjudgingothers. But this function of languageshouldbe understoodfor what it is and for the harm it has done in making people self-conscious,hesitant, and unimaginative n theirspeech. The teachermay at least release the student from some of his hesitancy bypointingout exactly what importancecorrectnessdoeshave and byattempting to rank the incorrectusages in terms of their relativesocialinexpediency.Much of the confusion,then, in discussionsof proprietyin lan-guage arises from the failure to apply appropriatecriteria in de-terminingthe status of the disputedconstruction.If the teacherofEnglishwould realizethis andmake it clearto his students,instruc-tion in English might be relievedof much of the arbitrarinessandunreasonableness hat make so many students dislike it. And intime, perhaps, the appreciationof this etiquette function of cor-rectness would make for a more intelligent attitude toward lan-guage.

criteria of correctness

Documents