Standard English
WE need a standard for English just as we need a standard for money. Uncertainty as to the meaning of words or the construction of sentences may be as harmful to intercourse between English-speaking people as a variable pound or dollar lacking a solid gold basis would be to trade. An English standard is all the more necessary because the people who use our language are scattered over the world. Two-thirds of them live in the United States, where English has been imposed upon and influenced by a host of immigrants from all the nations of Europe. It is well that the International Council for English, with its headquarters here and an American secretary, has been founded " to maintain the traditions and foster the development of our common tongue."
We are reminded at once of the French Academy, founded by Richelieu in 1634, to study, purify and standardize the French language. It did not originate in the great Cardinal's brain. He gave official approval to the informal activities of the courtiers and wits who had been meeting at Conrart's house to discuss with Balzac and Vaugelas and Malherbe various points of style. Their private enterprise, thus encouraged, has made French what it is—the most lucid and uniform of all spoken tongues—without seriously detracting from its richness and charm. The various provincial Academies of Italy have done as much for literary Italian, which is written by all educated people, although they may still speak the dialects. German has been standardized to a large extent by the administrative action of the higher educational authorities. Other nations, like Holland and Greece, have grappled more or less successfully with their language problems. But English, which is spoken by 180,000,000 people, not counting educated Asiatics or Africans, has been left to develop without guidance or Control.
The wonder is that this development, proceeding in many .different parts of the world, has been on the whole so even, and that the local divergencies of usage are still so slight. Let us distinguish clearly between spoken and written English. It is true, no doubt, that an American from St. Louis or Chicago who had never before crossed the Atlantic would find some difficulty in understanding, and being understood by, the average resident in a London suburb, . and that he would be puzzled by the conversation in a train in Manchester or Sheffield, to say nothing of Dundee or Arbroath. But it is true also that to a Londoner in a crowded train in the neighbourhood of Oldham or Wigan the local dialect is as unintelligible as it would be to an American, while the Lancashire man wandering in Poplar or Lambeth by-ways may find himself perplexed by the native speech. For here, as in America and every other country, the masses retain their local dialects which yield but slowly to the unifying influences of the schools. As between England and America the differences in spoken English are largely differences of intonation, partly explicable, perhaps, by climate. Americans have their own way of pronouncing some English words, but so have Scotsmen and Irishmen ; indeed, pronunciation, even among fairly well educated Englishmen, is still strangely full of variety. We might seek some measure of agreement among ourselves first, and then as between England and America, as to the pronunciation of such debatable words as " acoustics," or " inventory," and in this matter the International Council could help. But it is idle to hope, or even to desire, that all English-speaking people should adopt the same intonation or abandon their habitual and varying pronunciations of common words. All that we can do is to realize that the differences of intonation exist, and that the Virginian or Middle West accent is as natural to its user as the London accent is to a Londoner. The English people who are distressed at the slightly nasal accent of many Americans should be reminded that Canadians often resent what they call the London drawl, accentuated as it is by the bashfulness of the Englishman among strangers M a strange land.
With the written language the task of securing and maintaining a standard is infinitely easier. Everyone in, every English-speaking country reads a newspaper, and most. people read nothing else. Therefore if journa- lists keep in mind the importance of developing the Common language on sound lines, the standard will be upheld. Now, whatever may be said against American journalism by those who know. very little about it, the truth is that the average American newspaper, including the local weekly, is written in much the same kind of plain English as our own newspapers employ. Moreover, the influence of the many University Schools of Journal- ism in America is increasingly powerful, and it is always wielded in support of a clear and direct English style. We have before us, for example, the " Deskbook " of the School of Journalism in the University of Missouri, which, with its insistence on good English, simple, terse and natural, would commend itself to every English writer for the Press. Professor Mann, the author of this manual, is just as severe on clichés, or what he calls " bromides," as we should be. He warns his students not to write " burly negro," or " crisp, five-dollar bill," nor to use " casket " for coffin, or " obsequies " for funeral. " Think twice before writing ' very,' " he says. " Use slang on rare occasions only "—though the line between slang and accepted terms is always varying, and serious American writers will use " near American," or " near beer." " Avoid the meaningless words with which some writers seek to emphasize their ' statements.' " What more could a teacher of English composition in England say for the benefit of his pupils ? We see no reason why the standard of written English should not be steadily upheld in America now that most of her newspaper men and women are drawn from the universities and schools of journalism. Many literary people look upon the Atlantic Monthly as the best-written magazine in the English-speaking world, and the other leading American magazines are not less solicitous to maintain the literary quality of their contributions. To misjudge the American Press by the eccentricities of a few of its members is as foolish as it would be to take some of our fourth-rate sporting journalists as representatives of the British Press. In America, no less than here, the Press as a whole does its best to keep the common language undefiled.
But there is plenty of work for the International Council of English to do. There are many slight differences between the English and American vocabularies. Some words like " clever," " smart," or " honest " change their meanings when they cross the ocean. An English- man always attaches a special significance to the word " bug," while for Americans it is a mere generic term for any insect, however harmless. " Corn " and " car " and " gun " are among the many simple words which have one meaning here and another in America. The Council might prepare a really authoritative list of all such ambiguous words with their respective connotations. We are gradually adopting some American terms, just as Americans are adopting some of ours, and in the course of time, as more Americans visit England and more Englishmen visit America, it is probable that the number of words peculiar to one country or the other will diminish. We might all agree, with the help of the Council, about the spelling of the many new terms that are continually coming into the common language, at the instance of one or other of the English-speaking peoples in North America, Australasia, South Africa or here. Modern English has become a world-language, not least because it has absorbed many words from many sources and made them its own. But the process needs some supervision, such as this International Council may give.
Previous page
