Bad English: A History of Linguistic Aggravation

There are two schools of thought among lexicographers and grammarians -- prescriptivists and descriptivists. The prescriptivists think that their profession includes guidance on speaking and writing "proper" English. The descriptivists believe that their job is just to describe how English is actually used. Most lexicographers and grammarians are a little bit of both. Shea tilts very much toward the descriptivist end of the spectrum -- I can only think of one place where he finds a usage to be improper. Along the way, he debunks prescriptivist claims about the improper or unhistorical nature of many words and word usages, such as "ain't," "compact," dangling prepositions, split infinitives, inappropriate apostrophes, etc. His researches into word history are learned and extraordinary, and effectively demolishe claims that certain disfavored usages are new or unattested in good authors. Furthermore, the book is a fun read. He uses humor to demonstrate that staid and proper grammarians do not know what they are talking about. His central thesis seems to be that there is no one such thing as "good English."One could wish for a little more reflection from Shea, however. Like anything which evolves over time, language changes because more useful locutions drive out older, less useful ones. How does this happen, and why? Linguist evolution requires two things -- a certain degree of stability of usage, or people could not understand each other at all, and a certain degree of change, or language could not adapt to new conditions. It seems to me that Shea underplays the role of the former. Language serves many functions, but surely the most important of them is intelligibility. Change words and usage too fast and people cannot understand each other: indeed, one of the tactics used by "in groups" is to modify language in ways sufficiently radically that they cannot be understood by the general public. How much "incorrect" usage -- i.e. linguistic change -- can a language tolerate before it becomes another language? Why does language change? Is there an overall pattern to linguistic change, or are its changes purely arbitrary? Shea touches on such questions, but does so lightly and in passing. It would be beneficial if he would write another, more philosophical, book that address these deeper questions. Still, a very good book and an excellent introduction to issues confronting language and its usages.

This is a very well written, interesting collection of commentaries on many current English usages which many of us--we few, we unhappy few, we small band of brothers and sisters-- find offensive, or to be signs of ignorance or simple sloth in our native tongue. The writer's approach is more or less, "Unless there is some obvious error, new usages are just the changes to our living language. Changes of nouns into transitive verbs [see, e.g., "incentivize"] are just fine. What is, is; what will be, will be; don't worry, be happy..." To which this curmudgeon says, "Hrrrumph; balderdash." Many of Mr. Shea's apologia for current misusage are backed up with isolated references to very old (many centuries, in some cases) passages from writers or personages of great or little renown to, in essence, say, "See, old so-and-so wrote the same thing way back-a-then, so it's okay." But that assumes that old so-and-so was correct way-back-a-then, an assumption which I am not prepared to indulge: the rhetorical device of the appeal ad vericundiam rarely carries the day. There are proper usages and improper usages, and educated people who encounter those who use the slovenly "new" usages think less of the slovenly, and thus, especially to younger people or new speakers of English looking to advance in a world controlled by the educated, English speakers are done a disservice by being given a bye for poor usage. All that said, this is very much worth the read, as he does make some interesting points about the morphology of English usage, and it is very true that languages that do not grow and change, die.

This is a book that should be read by all English teachers and anyone who likes language. The author gives many examples of "bad English" usage that were the whim of one or more language critics that were unaware of the history of the word. Some examples of "bad English" actually predate "good English". Despite the facts, some readers will remain uncomfortable with some usage, but he reminds us that a living language is constantly changing---otherwise we would still be speaking Old English. As Shakespeare wrote, "Nothing is either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

Fascinating book that is written in clear and precise terms that explain the origin, history, and development of a word and the idiosyncrasies of it's usage within a society. I really enjoyed Shea's explanations, critiques, and rationales for word usage. The introduction gives one a picture into the points and goals of the author. As a student of colloquial and modern language usage I am appreciative of Shea's scholarship and understanding of his subject. The book is a welcome addition to my library.

There is some repetition in terms of the points that English is a constantly changing language, that words considered acceptable today were formerly frowned upon (and the opposite as well), and that attempts to prevent the gradual modification of the language are largely futile. However, much of the book is a description of various words and elements of grammar that are part of the history of English, and of the amusing and sometimes extravagant characters that have cared deeply about the language and its changes. The author has a clever sense of humor, and I enjoyed this book.

If you know someone who interrupts your best story telling or debating point to correct a spoken grammatical error, this is a book for you and me. Or is it you and I? A grammarian would point out that Eric Clapton's lyric “I feel the magic between you and I” should be “I feel the magic between you and me." The grammar watchdog would be correct in correcting Mr. Clapton. However, Eric would still be rich and famous while the pronoun pedant would still be showing off to no real purpose other than to show off. This book is like a Kevlar vest full of material that can stop a rude correction mid-sentence.

I liked his writing style, though he tries too hard to make this light for the readers. His book is a small readable map of language concerns, and a good demolition job of many language myths.

対立する言語観に規範主義と記述主義がある。規範主義は（古くは）ラテン語の文法・論理・語源などにそぐわない語法・文法を「誤り」とする｡　記述主義は現実にどう用いられているかを重視し,　用いられる頻度が高ければそれを認める立場である。たとえば、to 不定詞の間に副詞を挟む「分割不定詞」（split infinitive）はラテン語には存在しないので19世紀頃から誤りと見なされてきた。しかし実際に用いられていることが実態調査やアンケート調査で明らかにされ,　最近では大規模コンピュータ・コーパスでより高い精度で実証されるに至っている｡ このようなこともあって,　今日では「分割不定詞」が分割語法（divided usage）の争点となることはあまりない。本書では ‘So strive for the latter(=good writing) and leave the talk of infinitives out of it’ (p.80)と記されている。著者のAmmon SheaはReading the OED (2009)の著者でもある(日本語訳『そして、僕はOEDを読んだ』三省堂)。文副詞のhopefully, 動詞用法のcontact, 接続詞用法のlike, 過去分詞を修飾するvery など悩ましい分割語法を、OEDを縦横に引用し、古い文法書も克明に参照して詳細に論じている。語法とOEDに関心にある人にお薦めする。

I love this book and books like it. Always fun for me