Skirmishes continue to blow up between linguists and the traditionalists who blame them for the disasters befalling English. Ryan Bloom, in a blog post for The New Yorker, accuses irresponsible “descriptivists” of ignoring the “real-world costs” of giving people “permission to speak and write how we like.” According to Bloom, Americans who've been led to think that it's okay to break usage lawsâto say who instead of whom, for instanceâare letting their language slide, and therefore losing out on good jobs and education. British verbal critic Lynne Truss is even more scathing in a column for The Telegraph. She castigates linguists and lexicographers who are “entirely concerned with looking cool and broad-minded and âdescriptive'” rather than throwing their weight behind proper usage. She is scandalized by the thought of “well-paid academics just sitting back and enjoying the show” while the language collapses around them.
Dwight MacDonald and other critics of Webster's Third felt much the same way about Gove. To go back further, Richard Grant White felt much the same way about Fitzedward Hall, and various reviewers felt that way about William Fowle and the other rational grammarians. Accepting that Who did she speak to? is normal English for everyone except those who, in Webster's words, “learn the language by books,” is still seen by some as a sign of linguistic radicalism and moral recklessness. 35
Just as defenders of Webster's Third responded to critics by explaining the true purpose of a dictionary, linguists have replied to these attacks by explaining that descriptivists are not in charge of the language. Their job as researchers is to observe and analyze. Even if they tried to dictate usage, they argue, they'd be unlikely to have any better luck than traditional grammarians or verbal critics. Usage standards change over time in spite of pronouncements by experts. “Blaming descriptive linguists for children's illiteracy is like blaming physicists for children's inability to ride bikes,” comments Jonathon Owen of the Arrant Pedantry blog. Pullum likewise points out in an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education that it is not his responsibility as a linguist to prevent changes to English, even if he could, but “to formulate accurate generalizations” about how it functions. 36
Owen explains in another post that “linguists love facts.” They are therefore inclined to dismiss grammar prescriptions that are based on spurious facts and faulty assumptions. Linguists, he says, are not necessarily against prescribed rules, but those rules should be based on evidence, not personal taste. 37 Traditionalists are no more accepting of these arguments than they have ever been. They believe in keeping to the principles first laid down in the classic grammar books.
Eighteenth-century grammar books have persisted as a force in American life. Their rules may be archaic and seldom followed. They may be based more on the whims of a single grammarian than the real usage of any period. For many people, however, knowing them still serves as a benchmark of education and culture. Quite a few Americans still operate with grammatical attitudes that harken back to the days of the early republic, when grammar study and moral behavior were tightly entwined. For them, a command of standard grammar is more than a practical skillâit is also a virtue.
All the same, we may be entering a period when grammatical rigidity gives way to a greater appreciation of how Americans really talk. While the Internet offers sticklers unprecedented opportunities to lay down the law, it's also exposing more people than ever before to expert discussions about language and grammar. Battles that once played out mainly between specialists now take place in the public arena. Anyone with online access can join in. One result is that more people are coming around to the idea of a grammatical standard that's closer to current speech. In other words, Americans may finally be catching up with Noah Webster.
