The Role of Prescriptivism in American Linguistics 1820–1970

• Preface | p. v
• 1.0 Introduction | p. 1
• 1.1 Prescriptivism
• 1.2 Descriptivism
• 1.3 Other Linguistic Attitudes
• 1.4 Ecology of Language
• 1.5 Correctness in America
• 1.6 Organization of the Study
• 1.7 Attitude and Behavior
• 2.0 The Challenge to Prescriptivism: 1820-1851 | p. 6
• 2.1 Reaction Against Rote Learning
• 2.2 William Samuel Cardell
• 2.3 Noah Webster
• 2.4 Attacks on Murray's Grammar
• 2.5 Goold Brown
• 2.6 Asa Rand
• 2.7 Effect of Nationalism
• 2.8 An Appeal from the Old Theory of English Grammar
• 2.9 Boundlessness and Romanticism
• 3.0 The Revival of Prescriptivism: 1851-1875 | p. 17
• 3.1 Hempl's Indictment
• 3.2 The Genteel Culture
• 3.3 The Great Dictionary War
• 3.4 Attack on ‘Innovations’
• 3.5 Goold Brown Redux
• 3.6 Marsh and the ‘Anglican Community’
• 3.7 Prescriptivism and Personal Impressions
• 3.8 Correctness in the Common Schools
• 3.9 Richard Grant White
• 3.10 Fitzedward Hall
• 3.11 General Cultural Conditions
• 4.0 The Persistence of the Prescriptive Notion: The 20th-century | p. 31
• 4.1 Public Attitudes and Linguistic Developments
• 4.2 Science and Language Study
• 4.3 Linguistic Ecology
• 4.4 The Genteel Continuity
• 4.5 The Role of NCTE
• 4.6 The ‘Standard English’ Notion
• 4.7 The Role of Grammar Instruction
• 4.8 The Stylistic Dimension
• 4.9 The Failed Revolutions
• 4.10 Correctness in the 1960's
• 4.11 Transformational Grammar and Correctness
• 4.12 The Intellectual Spirit of the 20th-century
• 4.13 The 1890's
• 4.14 The Revolt Against Formalism
• 4.15 The Progressive Dilemma and Language
• 4.16 The Special Status of Linguistic Attitudes
• 4.17 The Romantic Continuity
• 4.18 The Academic Protest
• 4.19 Universal Attitudes and Local Conditions
• 5.0 The Dictionary War | p. 50
• 5.1 The Third and American Structuralism
• 5.2 The Initial Press Reaction
• 5.3 Deeper Criticisms
• 5.4 The Third as Bolshevism
• 5.5 The Editorial Touchstones
• 5.6 Gove's Rebuttal
• 5.7 Journalistic Defenses of the Third
• 5.8 Attacks by Professional Publications
• 5.9 Mario Pei
• 5.10 The Debate Sustained
• 5.11 The Character of the Attacks
• 5.12 Two Principal Attacks
• 5.13 The Professional Split
• 5.14 Sledd's Indictment
• 5.15 Prescriptive Strength
• 5.16 The British View
• 5.17 Business Rivalry
• 5.18 The Usage Panel
• 5.19 Prescriptivism Evidenced
• 6.0 Black English and the American Dream | p. 78
• 6.1 Black vs. ‘Standard’ English
• 6.2 The Reality of ‘Standard’ English
• 6.3 The Reality of Black English
• 6.4 The Deficit Notion
• 6.5 Labov's Rebuttal
• 6.6 Eradication Movement
• 6.7 Enlightened Bidialectalism
• 6.8 Motives for Bidialectalism
• 6.9 Objections to Bidialectalism
• 6.10 Jensenism
• 6.11 A Sociolinguistic Option to Bidialectalism
• 6.12 The Prescriptive Continuity
• 7.0 Conclusion | p. 107
• Index | p. 124

Cited by six other publications

COLLINS, PETER

2022. Hypercorrection in English: an intervarietal corpus-based study. English Language and Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 279 ff.

Craft, Justin T., Kelly E. Wright, Rachel Elizabeth Weissler & Robin M. Queen

2020. Language and Discrimination: Generating Meaning, Perceiving Identities, and Discriminating Outcomes. Annual Review of Linguistics 6:1 ► pp. 389 ff.

Kibbee, Douglas A. & Alan Craig

2019. Understanding prescription in language. A corpus-based approach. Histoire Epistémologie Langage 41:2 ► pp. 67 ff.

Busse, Ulrich

2015. Transatlantic perspectives on late nineteenth-century English usage. In Transatlantic Perspectives on Late Modern English [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 4], ► pp. 73 ff.

Edwards, John & Maryanne Jacobsen

1987. Standard and regional standard speech: Distinctions and similarities. Language in Society 16:3 ► pp. 369 ff.

Giles, Howard, Miles Hewstone & Peter Ball

1983. Language attitudes in multilingual settings: Prologue with priorities. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 4:2-3 ► pp. 81 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.

Main BIC Subject

Main BISAC Subject