Cover not available
Part of
Constructing Languages: Norms, myths and emotions
Edited by Francesc Feliu and Josep M. Nadal
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 13] 2016
► pp. 99–129

Codification and prescription in linguistic standardisation

Myths and models

 | University of Cambridge
This paper aims to contribute to the field of “comparative standardology”, arguing that it is only through the adoption of a comparative perspective that certain myths about the process of standardisation can be dispelled. In particular, I will consider what light recent work on English and German sheds on the case of French, typically portrayed as the European language which has been most subjected to prescriptive influences. Focussing on the interrelation between description, codification, prescription and purist activity, I will start by considering how the dominant models of standardisation (Haugen, Milroy & Milroy) have treated codification and prescription. I will then examine how far the so-called prescriptive and purist grammarians in France merit this reputation and compare this analysis with the situation in England and Germany. I will conclude by looking at the difference between intention and effect, and the diverse roles played by individuals, private institutions and official bodies.
Published online: 25 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.13.07ayr
References (74)
References
Armstrong, Nigel, and Ian E. Mackenzie. 2013. Standardization, Ideology and Linguistics. 
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auroux, Sylvain. 1992. “Introduction. Le Processus de grammatisation et ses enjeux”. In Histoire des idées linguistiques. Tome 2. S. Auroux (ed.), 11–64. Liège: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, Wendy, and Magali Seijido. 2011a. Remarques et observations sur la langue française: Histoire et évolution d’un genre. Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
. 2011b. “Les Compilations raisonnées des Remarques et Observations sur la langue française”. French Studies 65(3): 347–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azad, Yusef. 1989. The Government of Tongues: Common Usage and the “Prescriptive” Tradition 1650–1800. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, and Peter Trudgill (eds.). 1998. Language Myths. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C., and Massimo Sturiale. 2008. “Introduction”. In Perspectives on Prescriptivism, Joan C. Beal, Carmela Nocera, and Massimo Sturiale (eds.), 9–19. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain. 1982. L’Éternel Grammairien: Étude du discours normatif. Berne / 
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brincat, Joseph. 2003. “Purism and Neologism in Contemporary Maltese”. In Purism in Minor Languages, Endangered Languages, Regional Languages, Mixed Languages: Papers form the Conference on “Purism in the Age of Globalisation”, Bremen, September 2001, J. Brincat, W. Boeder, and T. Stolz (eds.), 155–170. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Brincat, Joseph, Winfried Boeder, and Thomas Stolz (eds.). 2003. Purism in Minor Languages, Endangered Languages, Regional Languages, Mixed Languages: Papers form the Conference on “Purism in the Age of Globalisation”, Bremen, September 2001. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Brousseau, Anne-Marie. 2011. “Identités linguistiques, langues identitaires: synthèse”. Arborescences: revue d’études françaises 1. ([URL]).Google Scholar
Brunot, Ferdinand. 1909. Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900. Vol. 3: La Formation de la langue classique (1600–1660). Paris: A. Colin.Google Scholar
Brunstad, Endre. 2003. “Standard Language and Linguistic Purism”. Sociolinguistica 17: 52–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cerquiglini, Bernard. 2008. Merci professeur! Chroniques savoureuses sur la langue française. Paris: Bayard.Google Scholar
. 2012. Petites Chroniques du français comme on l’aime! Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Chapman, Don. (forthcoming). “Stalwarts, SNOOTs, and Some Readers: How ‘Traditional Rules’ are Traditional”. In Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, and Carol Percy (eds.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Coski, Christopher. 2011. From Barbarism to Universality: Language and Identity in Early Modern France. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Costa Carreras, Joan. 2007. “Réflexions sur la diffusion de la norme linguistique catalane”. In Variable territoriale et promotion des langues minoritaires, A. Viaut (ed.), 287–300. Pessac: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine.Google Scholar
Davies, Winifred V., and Nils Langer. 2006. The Making of Bad Language. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Delveroudi, Rheá. 2008. “Les Avatars du purisme en Grèce et en France”. Le français moderne 76(1): 24–37.Google Scholar
Deumert, Ana, and Wim Vandenbussche (eds.). 2003. Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donhauser, Karin. 1989. “Das Deskriptionsproblem und seine präskriptive Lösung. Zur grammatikologischen Bedeutung der Vorreden in den Grammatiken des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts”. Sprachwissenschaft 14(1): 29–57.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1988. “Standardisation as a form of language spread”. In Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications and Case Studies. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1987, Peter H. Lowenberg (ed.), 119–132. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Frantext:[URL]
Garner, Bryan. 2009. Garner’s Modern American Usage. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1986. “Were there Egyptian koines?”. In The Fergusonian Impact. Vol. I. Joshua A. Fishman et al. (eds.), 271–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. 1942. The Italian questione della lingua: An Interpretative Essay. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1972 [1966]. “Dialect, Language, Nation”. In Sociolinguistics, J.B. Pride, and Janet Holmes (eds.), 97–111. Harmondsworth: Penguin (originally published in American Anthropologist 68: 922–935).Google Scholar
. 1987. Blessings of Babel. Bilingualism and Language Planning. Problems and Pleasures. Berlin / New York / Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodson, Jane. 2006. “The Problem of Joseph Priestley’s (1733–1804) Descriptivism”. Historiographia Linguistica 33: 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Joseph Priestley’s two Rudiments of English Grammar: 1761 and 1768”. In Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), 177–189. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iglésias, Narcís. 2010. “Les études de cas de la standardologie, un enjeu épistémologique de la sociolinguistique. Approche à une comparaison historique entre le cas catalan et le norvégien”. In Pour une épistémologie de la sociolinguistique: Actes du colloque international de Montpellier 10–12 décembre 2009, H. Boyer (ed.), 197–204. Limoges: Lambert Lucas.Google Scholar
Jernudd, Björn H., and Michael J. Shapiro. (eds.). 1989. The Politics of Language Purism. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, John E. 1987. Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E., and Talbot J. Taylor (eds.). 1990. Ideologies of Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kibbee, Douglas A. 2010. “Continuités et discontinuities dans l’histoire du prescriptivisme française”. In Deuxième Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, F. Neveu et al. (eds.). (
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
).Google Scholar
Kliffer, Michael D. 2007. “Prescriptivism revisited”. Lacus Forum 33: 329–340.Google Scholar
Langer, Nils, and Winifred V. Davies (eds.). 2005. Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages. New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linn, Andrew R., and Nicola McLelland (eds.). 2002. Standardization: Studies from the Germanic Languages. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littré, Émile. 1873–1874. Dictionnaire de la langue française. 4 vol. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. Anthony. 1993. French: From Dialect to Standard. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowth, Robert. 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. London: A. Millar and R. & J. Dodsley.Google Scholar
Macé, Jean. 1651. Methode universelle pour apprandre facilemant les langues, pour parler puremant et escrire nettemant en françois, recueillie par le sieur Du Tertre. Paris: Jean Jost.Google Scholar
McLelland, Nicola. 2011. J. G. Schottelius’s ‘Ausführliche Arbeit von der Teutschen HaubtSprache’ (1663) and its place in Early Modern European Vernacular Language Study. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2013). “ Des guten Gebrauchs Wegzeigere: du bon usage dans la tradition allemande 1200–2000”. In Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique: Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales, Wendy Ayres-Bennett, and Magali Seijido (eds.), 207–220. Lyon: Presses de l’ENS.
Milroy, James. 2001. “Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Strandardization”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(4): 530–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. 1991. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. Second edition. London / New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murray, Lindley. 1795. English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. York: Wilson, Spence and Mawman.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. 2006. “Standardisation”. In A History of the English Language, Richard Hogg, and David Denison (eds.), 271–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padley, G. Arthur. 1988. Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500–1700. Trends in Vernacular Grammar II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paveau, Marie-Anne, and Laurence Rosier. 2008. La Langue française: passions et polémiques. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
Percy, Carol. 1997. “Paradigms Lost: Bishop Lowth and the ‘Poetic Dialect’ in his English Grammar”. Neophilologus 81: 129–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Priestley, Joseph. 1761. Rudiments of English Grammar; Adapted to the Use of Schools, with Observations on Style. London: R. Griffiths.Google Scholar
. 1762. A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar. Warrington: W. Eyres.Google Scholar
. 1768. The Rudiments of English Grammar; Adapted to the Use of Schools, with Notes and Observations for the use of those who have made some Proficiency with Language. Second edition revised. London: T. Becket, P. A. de Hondt and J. Johnson.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1974. “Lowth’s grammar: a re-evaluation”. Linguistics 137: 63–78.Google Scholar
Rey, Christophe, and Isabelle Pierozak (2013). “Regard sociolexicologique sur le ‘bon usage’ régional du Dictionnaire de l’Académie française: regards sociolexicologiques croisés”. In Bon Usage et variation sociolinguistique: Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales, Wendy Ayres-Bennett, and Magali Seijido (eds.), 159–170. Lyon: Presses de l’ENS.
Rodríguez-Gil, María E. 2003. “Ann Fisher, Descriptive or Prescriptive Grammarian?”. Linguistica e Filologia 17: 183–203.Google Scholar
Sampson, Rodney (ed.). 1993. Authority and the French Language. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Sijs, Nicoline van der (ed.). 1999. Taaltrots. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Contact.Google Scholar
Smith, John D. 1983. “La norme chez les grammairiens de l’Inde ancienne”. In La Norme linguistique, Édith Bédard, and Jacques Maurais (eds.), 21–44. Paris: Le Robert. Google Scholar
Straaijer, Robin. 2009. “Deontic and Epistemic Modals as Indicators of Prescriptive and Descriptive Language in the Grammars by Joseph Priestley and Robert Lowth”. In Current Issues in Late Modern English, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), 57–87. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Statutes of the French Academy [URL]
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2000. “Normative Studies in England”. In History of the Language Sciences / Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften / Histoire des Sciences du Langage. Vol. 1. Sylvain Auroux, E.F.K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe, and Kees Versteegh (eds.), 876–887. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2011. The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012a. “The Codification of English in England”. In Standards of English. Codified Varieties around the World, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 34–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. “Codifying the English Language”. In Codifications, Canons, and Curricula. Description and Prescription in Language and Literature, Anne Schröder, Ulrich Busse, and Ralf Schneider (eds.), 61–77. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag.Google Scholar
Thomas, George. 1991. Linguistic Purism. London / New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Trask, R. Larry. 1999. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vorlat, Emma. 1979. “Criteria of Grammaticalness in 16th and 17th Century English Grammar”. Leuvense Bijdragen 68(2): 129–140.Google Scholar
Vaugelas, Claude Favre de. 1647. Remarques sur la langue françoise utiles à ceux qui veulent bien parler et bien escrire. Paris: Veuve J. Camusat and P. le Petit.Google Scholar
Walsh, Olivia. 2012. Linguistic Purism in France and Quebec. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, and Marís E. Rodríguez-Gil. 2013. “The ECEG Database”. Transactions of the Philological Society 111(2): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Brown, Josh
2024. Lingua francas as evidence of standard language ideology in historical perspective. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages DOI logo
Janice Carruthers, Mairi McLaughlin & Olivia Walsh
2024. Historical and Sociolinguistic Approaches to French, DOI logo
Goldshtein, Maria, Jaclyn Ocumpaugh, Andrew Potter & Rod D. Roscoe
2024. The Social Consequences of Language Technologies and Their Underlying Language Ideologies. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14696], ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo
Costa-Carreras, Joan, Carla Amorós-Negre & Miquel Àngel Pradilla Cardona
2023. ‘Compositionality’ in comparative standardology. In Desired Language [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 35], ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Wendy Ayres-Bennett & John Bellamy
2021. The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization, DOI logo
McLelland, Nicola
2021. Grammars, Dictionaries and Other Metalinguistic Texts in the Context of Language Standardization. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization, ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Walsh, Olivia
2021. The French language: monocentric or pluricentric? Standard language ideology and attitudes towards the French language in twentieth-century language columns in Quebec. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42:9 ► pp. 869 ff. DOI logo
Ayres-Bennett, Wendy
2020. From Haugen’s codification to Thomas’s purism: assessing the role of description and prescription, prescriptivism and purism in linguistic standardisation. Language Policy 19:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.