Date: 21-Aug-2006
From: Anja Wanner <awannerwisc.edu>
Subject: Weeds in the Garden of Words
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/17/17-1226.html
AUTHOR: Kate BurridgeTITLE: Weeds in the Garden of WordsSUBTITLE: Further observations on the tangled history of the English languagePUBLISHER: Cambridge University PressYEAR: 2005
Anja Wanner, Department of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison
In his book ''The Language Instinct'' (1994) Steven Pinker accused''mainstream American linguists'' of having left the task of satisfyingeveryone's natural curiosity about language ''entirely to the mavens'' (p.399). Although this has changed to some extent (there have been a number ofbooks written by linguists addressing common beliefs about language, e.g.Napoli, 2003), most of the bestselling books about English grammar orvocabulary aiming at a general audience are still not written by linguists(e.g., Truss, 2004).
Kate Burridge's new book (196 pages) ''Weeds in the Garden of Words'' is thekind of book that illustrates that writing about language can be personaland professional, entertaining and informative, profound and accessible atthe same time. As in her previous book, ''Blooming English'' (Cambridge UP,2004), Burridge uses the metaphor of language as a garden to discussphenomena dealing with linguistic variation and change. This time, shefocuses on what many speakers consider the ''weeds'' of a language, but thereader learns very quickly that just as people can make tea of dandelion,double negation may not be such nuisance after all. The pieces wereoriginally written for an Australian radio show (the book was firstpublished by ABC Books for the Australian Broadcasting Company in 2004),which accounts for the richness of data from Australian English. Linguisticweeds are defined as ''structural features of the language whose virtueshave yet to be realized'', among them ''the pronunciations we don't want, theconstructions that are of place, the words we create but hate'' (p. 2). Thebook is loosely organized into seven chapters, but it is ''meant for dippinginto'' (p. 7), and that's what anyone who gets his/her hands on it will do,with delight. The chapter organization divides linguistic phenomenaperceived as ''weeds'' according to their linguistic domains. ''Lexical weeds''(Chapters 2 and 3) are words perceived as inappropriate, including jargon,slang, or euphemisms, as well as words that seem to have changed meaninginexplicably. ''Grammatical weeds'' (Chapter 4) are constructions that seemto run against prescriptive rules, such as the use of bare adverbs.Finally, phonological weeds, or ''weeds in our sounds and spelling'' (Chapter5), are exemplified by silent letters and perceived mistakes inpronunciation, such as consonant dropping. The words and structures thatBurridge discusses come from a variety of sources – linguistic research(her own and others'), dictionaries, queries from people who call in toBurridge's radio show. Chapter 6 deals with ''the truly nasty weeds'', bywhich Burridge refers to more applied topics, such as the use ofdehumanizing '''deodorant' language'' in the context of news reporting (e.g.''collateral damage'', p. 170). The final chapter is a short conclusion.Chapters are interspersed with boxes that give information about specificwords, such as the history of the word ''nylon'' (simply a word coined byDuPont, p.51f.) or of the participle ''gotten'' (which was recommended as thecorrect form in an 18th century grammar, p. 113). The book ends with abibliography and an index, which lists words and expressions that arediscussed in the text (''cat's whiskers/pyjamas'', ''edutainment'') as well assome linguistic terms (''dangling modifier'', ''conversion'').
EVALUATION
''Weeds in the Garden of Words'' is a delightful book about irregularitiesand perceived trouble makers in the English language. It is geared towardsa general audience, and, unlike other books based on pieces originallywritten for magazines or broadcasts (e.g. Wallraff, 2000), it is writtenwith the insight of a linguist with expertise in language variation andchange. The writing is conversational (Burridge uses the first personplural a lot, solidarizing with the reader) and kept deliberately free ofjargon. For example, when addressing the passive, Burridge explains thenotions of topic and information structure without actually using theseterms and she illustrates that the use of the passive does notautomatically make a text sound impersonal and undynamic (p. 94).
Burridge approaches the irregularities considered ''weeds'' from theperspective of a linguist, i.e. descriptively, but she recognizes thatoftentimes ''it doesn't really matter what linguistic science suggests, buthow speakers perceive their language to be'' (p. 54). If speakers perceivethe adjective ''niggardly'' as related to the ''highly tabooed word 'nigger''',they will avoid using it, and linguists may not simply disregard thoseperceived etymologies (p. 55). Burridge explains a number of languagechange processes, such as sound reduction or assimilation, but her maininterest lies in meaning shifts, ''undoubtedly the most complex part of ourlanguage, probably because more than any other area, it's tied to thecultural and social aspects of a speech community'' (p. 70). She illustratesthis on the basis of selected examples, such as the adjective ''gay'', whichdid not have any connotations of homosexuality up to the 20th century. Sheeffortlessly integrates insights from linguistic research into herargument, for example Bybee's work on frequency.
However, one has to bear in mind that this is not a scholarly book in thestrict sense. There are no footnotes or endnotes and not every claim isdocumented. For example, the famous ''ghoti'' example is perpetuated (p.161), even though – as far as I know – nobody ever produced any evidencethat Shaw actually said, tongue-in-cheek or not, that English spelling waschaotic enough to allow this as a spelling for ''fish'' (this topic has beendiscussed on the LinguistList). While I am not sure about whether or notthe interjection ''ouch'' is borrowed from German, I disagree with Burridge'sargument that the borrowing theory is improbable because it ''ouch'' is''nothing like the sound a German would make'' when in pain (p. 25). The mostcommon expression used in German in this context is probably ''aua'', but''autsch'' (pronounced just like ''ouch'') is certainly also very common, afact than can easily verified by doing a Google search.
Since the chapters are structured quite loosely, most readers will probablyuse the index to look up a specific topic. What is missing is some sort ofinformation about the dictionaries that Burridge draws on. They are notlisted in the bibliography, and the linguistically interested laypersondoes not necessarily know what sets the Oxford English Dictionary apartfrom, say, the Collins Essential English Dictionary (to list twodictionaries that are named in the text).
If you teach a class on English words (as I do), Burridge's book will notreplace a textbook on the subject, such as Heidi Harley's excellent''English Words'' (Blackwell, 2006), but it will be a most welcome complementand a source for many examples to be discussed in the classroom(personally, I loved to learn about Australianisms such as ''budgiesmugglers'' for a ''tight pair of men's swimming trunks'', p. 44, or thediscourse particle ''yeah-no'', p. 22). The book's particular strength isthat it reaches out to a general audience and explains a series oflinguistic phenomena from a professional perspective without ever beingsmug about speakers' attitudes. It is delightfully written and, to use aweed that has made it into the orderly garden of dictionaries, quiteunputdownable.
REFERENCES
Burridge, Kate (2004): Blooming English. Observations on the Roots,Cultivation and Hybrids of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Crystal, David (1995): The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Napoli, Donna Jo (2003): Language Matters. A Guide to Everyday QuestionsAbout Language. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Harley, Heidi (2006): English Words. A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford:Blackwell.
Pinker, Steven (1994): The Language Instinct. The New Science of Languageand Mind. London/Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Truss, Lynn (2004): Eats, Shoots &Leaves. The Zero Tolerance Approach toPunctuation. New York: Gotham. (Published in the UK in 2003).
Wallraff, Barbara: Word Court. Wherein Verbal Virtue Is Rewarded, CrimesAgainst the Language Are Punished, and Poetic Justice Is Done. New York:Harcourt.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
Anja Wanner is Associate Professor of English at the University ofWisconsin-Madison, where she teaches courses in English syntax andmorphology. She is currently working on a book on the English passive.
|