Giuliana Russo

“REVOLUTIONARY” AND “PRESCRIPTIVE”: WILLIAM COBBETT’S A GRAMMAR

OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1818).

No doubt remains in my mind, that there was more talent discovered and more political knowledge by the leaders amongst the Reformers,

than have ever been shown, at any period of time, by the Members of the two houses of parliament (sic!).There was only one thing in which any of you were deficient,

and that was in the mere art of so arranging the words in your Resolutions and Petitions as to make these compositions what is called grammatically correct.

(William Cobbett, The Political Register, 28 November 1817)

William Cobbett wrote A Grammar of the English Language, which was published in New York

on July 17th 1818. It quickly sold out as did a second London edition of 5000 copies which followed

in December. In 1819 two further London editions appeared, and by 1822 combined sales in

England and in America came to 50.000 copies which eventually became 100.000 by 1834.

Numerous editions were issued throughout the second half of the century, the most recent in 1923.

Despite the impressive sales figures and Cobbett’s fame, his Grammar has received little scholarly

attention.

In 1986 Salmon complained that «no one has yet provided a detailed appreciation of its value as a

linguistic monument of the nineteenth century»1 but her claim has been only partially fulfilled so

far: 1994 by Aarts who mostly concentrated on its genesis2 and in 1998 by Mugglestone who

focused her attention on the comparison between Cobbett’s Grammar and a revised edition of it by

Cobbett’s son James Paul to whom the Grammar had been addressed3. Apart from that, it has only

1V. SALMON, William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English Language […]to which are added Six Lessons. Ed. by Burchfield, R., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1984,«Notes and Queries», CCCXXXI,1986.2 F.G.A.M. AARTS, William Cobbett: Grammar of the English Language, «Neuphilologische Mitteilungen», 95, 1994, pp.319-332.3 L. MUGGLESTONE, Cobbett’s Grammar: William, James Paul and the politics of prescriptivism, «The Review of English Studies NS», 48, 192,1997, pp.47-88.

been sketched briefly in works on the history of the English language or language teaching4 and

hardly dealt with in general works on Cobbett’s life and political doctrine5.

The neglect of Cobbett’s grammar, in fact, is part of a twofold scholarly neglect: that of

nineteenth century English of which, as Gorlach complained two years ago in the introduction to his

monumental work on the subject, «no comprehensive description has ever been attempted»6, and

that related to grammars whose authors have for a number of reasons (religious beliefs, political

attitude, sex, geographical origin ) been left outside the mainstream of 'polite' British society.

Thus, a thorough study of a nineteenth century grammar such as Cobbett’s is needed because it is

likely to give important insights in the process of language standardisation, in a period in which

«the sociolinguistic foundations of PDE were laid […] when the population expanded

tremendously, especially in the industrial urban centres […], and when general education began to

level speech forms to an extent that is impossible to imagine for earlier periods»7.

As Smith noted

The non- refined and politically concerned reading audience was created by an increase in the number of readers during a time of considerable political conflict. It was the advent of this audience which challenged the concept of the vulgar language prompting a reconsideration of assumptions about language that justified class division.8

The aim of the present paper is to show the outcomes of an analysis of Cobbett’s A

Grammar of the English Language9 both at the linguistic and stylistic level in order to assess its role

in the spreading of a written norm from the refined upper classes of the 18th century to a larger part

of the English population of the Victorian Age and uncovering the politics of language or ideology

of standardisation, which generated it. In addition, I’ll challenge the dogma that a prescriptive

attitude to grammar implies a reactionary political creed: this came out as a “side-effect” of my

analysis.

4 Cf. N. F. BLAKE, A History of the English Language, London, MacMillan, 1996; D. FREEBORN, From Old English to Standard English, London ,MacMillan, 1992; A. P. R. HOWATT, , A History of English Language Teaching, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1984; G. LEITNER, English traditional grammars in the Nineteenth century in D. KASTOWSKY - A. SZWEDEK (eds.), Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, Mouton de Gruyter, 1986; I. MICHAEL, The Teaching of English from the Sixteenth Century to 1870, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987. PYLES & ALGEO, The Origins and development of the English Language, London, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 19934 . 5 Cf. F.G.A.M. AARTS, William Cobbett: radical, reactionary and poor man’s grammarian, «Neophilologus», 70, 603-614; , G. D. H. COLE, The Life of William Cobbett, London, Home & Van Thal, 1947; L. NATTRASS, William Cobbett. The Politics of Style, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995; J.V. OSBORNE, William Cobbett, New Brunswick- New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1966; J. SAMBROOK, William Cobbett, London and Boston, Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1973; G. SPATER, William Cobbett. The Poor Man’s Friend, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982; R. WILLIAMS, Cobbett, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983.6 M. GORLACH, English in Nineteenth century England. An Introduction, Cambridge, CUP, 1999, p.1.7 Ibidem.8 O. SMITH, op. cit, p.23.9 The edition I have used in this study is: C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English Language (the 1818 New York first edition with passages added in 1819, 1823, 1828), Amsterdam, Rodopi, 1983.

I will first give an account of the stylistic features of the grammar which I had already done in

detail in a previous study basing it on the framework devised by Linn10. Then a section of this

paper will be devoted to a qualitative linguistic analysis of the contents. This will be done by

confronting descriptions of linguistic phenomena given in the grammar with the correspondent

forms attested in that period and surveyed by Gorlach, one of the most reliable sources on 19 th

century Standard English at present for wealth and quality of the collected materials11.

From the very beginning the Grammar reveals itself a problematic and ambivalent work in

that although Cobbett seems to allow for innovation, this either turns out to be a device to convey

prescriptions or it is contrasted and superseded by traditional features altogether. This can be

immediately evinced from the stylistic choices he made in matters of title, dedication, structure,

naming of the grammatical categories involved, attitude towards varieties detectable by his labelling

of ungrammatical patterns and his use of modals and exemplification.12

In the title Cobbett makes the traditional statement that the grammar was intended «for the

Use of the Schools and of Young Persons in general»13 but coherent with his radical ideology and

political creed and comforted by his autobiographical experience of a self-made-man he

immediately after discloses his real intentions saying that he had intended his grammar «…more

especially for the Use of Soldiers, Sailors, Apprentices, and Plough-boys»14. He himself had

benefited from learning Lowth’s Grammar to progress in his political career and social status15.

Now he wanted to pass his knowledge of standard English on to the working classes in order to

enable them to use it as a tool in class warfare. His revolutionary intent cannot be ignored when he

uses a traditional element in the structure of a grammar, the dedicatory epistle, in a remarkably

unconventional way. Instead of addressing it to an illustrious and influential person usually from

aristocracy, as a ‘captatio benevolentiae’ act, as was customary at that time, he chooses to address it

to a Mr Benbow, «shoe-maker, of Manchester»16 whose radical views had caused him to be

imprisoned after the government suspended the Habeas Corpus.

The macrostructure of the grammar also adds to unconventionality. Cobbett wrote it «in a

series of Letters»17 addressed to his son James Paul, thus creating a confidential tone to involve his

10 Cf. G. RUSSO, A stylistic analysis of Lindley Murray’s and William Cobbett’s English Grammars: Prescriptive grammars as text types, in G. DI MARTINO-M. LIMA (eds.), English Diachronic Pragmatics, Napoli, CUEN, 2000, pp283-297. 11 M. GORLACH, op. cit..12 13 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p. 24.14 Ibidem.15 testimonianza16 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p. 25. In a second edition of the Grammar he changed his mind and addressed it to Queen Caroline (1767-1821). In our opinion, however Cobbett’s choice cannot be regarded as real shift in attitude towards political power. Queen Caroline, in fact, had become a public heroine when she claimed her rightful position as queen, despite her unpopular husband George IV had tried unsuccessfully to divorce her.17C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p.33.

model readers in a more user-friendly text.18 Once again, however, originality in structure is

counterbalanced by the traditional twofold partition of the grammar in Etymology and Syntax.

He dismisses Orthography as being «neither more nor less than the very humble business of putting

letters together properly so that they shall form words»19 and Prosody as «neither more nor less than

what is expressed by the more common word Pronunciation» and a «matter which ought not to

occupy much of your attention, because pronunciation is learnt as birds learn to chirp and sing».20

Here again what would seem a manifest departure from the prescriptive tradition and a liberal

attitude toward differences in accent, which was already considered a marker of class distinction, is

in fact due to what Stein has identified as a

constituent part of the ideology of standardisation, that is, the focus on written language as the paragon of language generally. This is related to the fact that most of the high functions are carried out in the written medium.21

Cobbett’s disregard for the spoken variety and his interest in the written language is apparent from

the very beginning when he declares that «In short it is sense and not sound which is the object of

our pursuit» and that «Tyranny has no enemy as formidable as the pen».22

Attitude towards variation is also shown in his use of right-wrong, correct-uncorrect dichotomy for

his labelling of ‘ungrammatical patterns’23 and the high occurrence of modals like must expressing

necessity when he prescribes what can be done and what is to be avoided in writing.24

As concerns the grammar meta-language, it reveals a strong adherence to the traditional

Latin-based system of naming in Etymology, Syntax, and Part of Speech in clear contradiction with

Cobbett’s manifest aversion for the ‘learned languages’25.

One single exception is probably constituted by the naming of modal verbs which he calls Signs.

Exemplification in the grammar would deserve a whole study in that it is a mine of

information both on Cobbett’s political ideology and on his way of conceiving education and

teaching. There occur two types of examples: 1. The customary Examples of false grammar, usually

excerpts from famous authors’ works which he introduces to point at common faults in the use of 18 Cf. ibidem: ««have put my work in a series of letters , in order that I might be continually reminded, that I was addressing myself to persons who needed to be spoken to with great clearness». For a full account on Cobbett’s unconventional choice see G.RUSSO, op. cit. , p. 285. 19 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p.34.20 Ivi, p.35.21 D. STEIN, op. cit., p.5.22 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p.35.23 There occur in the Grammar some instances of expressions denoting ungrammaticality based on the idea of ‘violation’ and also a few examples of pronouncements on ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ usage, but considerably prevailing is the practice of labelling ungrammatical patterns with stronger expressions such as «wrong», «fault», «error», «mistake», «bad». 24 See G.RUSSO, op. cit., p289.25 He had declared that ‘learned education’ was «worse than useless» (Political Register, 1807). It is worth noting in passing that although he was against the what he called «Learned Languages» he devoted a section of the Etymology of Nouns to The cases called the Saxon genitive «possessive case». Cf. C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (edd.), op. cit., p.47.

language so to demonstrate that learned men are not exempt from errors only because of their social

status26; 2. ‘neutral examples’, that is, examples he made up to illustrate grammar rules and not to

show any common faults, which always contain an explicit political message so to reach his

readers’ mind without using any traditional political genre such as the pamphlet. Indeed a quite

unorthodox practice at that time27.

It can be affirmed in conclusion that despite its apparently innovative features, the style

reveals Cobbett’s generalised adherence to tradition and a clear prescriptive attitude (see TABLE

1). In our opinion these are both signs of his intention of spreading the standard to lower classes of

learners. To do so he had to convey a fixed system of rules so as not to puzzle his readers and at the

same time try to attract them and involve them in a clear text.

As regards the linguistic data, this study will consist in seeing how major problem areas of

nineteenth century English, as singled out by Gorlach28, are tackled by Cobbett to test whether he

records innovations or persists in classical 18th century descriptions and prescriptions on language.

In the inflectional morphology area, one of the major problems was the genitive marker after stem-

final s. Although a generalised use of ‘s (as in Dickens’s) appears to be the rule29, Cobbett

considering proper nouns in the same way of plurals suggests to add only the elision mark: «When

plural nouns end with s you must not add an s to form the possessive case but put the elision mark

only after the s»30.

Adjectives had long before lost their inflection apart from comparative and superlative

forms. Here the matter was still unsettled on whether the synthetic or the analytic way was

preferable. The rules were quite complex and often disregarded but usually a certain degree of

variation was allowed and everything seemed to depend on cacophony31. Cobbett himself seems to

allow for variation when he says that «All adjectives which admit of comparison may form their

degrees by the use of the words more and most as rich richer /more rich, richest/ most rich», but

immediately after he adds

When the positive contains but one syllable, the degrees are usually formed by adding to the positive according to the four rules [adding –er or -r ]. When the positive contains two syllables, it is a matter of taste which method you shall use in forming the degrees. The ear is in this case the best guide. But when the positive contains more than two syllables the degrees must be formed by the use of more and most.”32

26 According to MICHAEL, that practice had been first applied to the teaching of syntax by Ann Fisher in 1750. Cf. I.MICHAEL, English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800, Cambridge, CUP, 1970. 27 147 out of 183 examples in the whole Syntax section, are ‘made up’ sentences, while 33 are quotations from illustrious people and authors such as Judge Blackstone, Tull, Bishop Lowth, Hume, Blair, Addison, Abercrombie, Milton, Johnson, Murray and The House of Lords. He also mentions Bacon’s, Bolinbroke’s and Swift’s works as being «full of misuses and faults» but he does not include any example from them within the text. 28 M. GORLACH, op. cit..29 Ivi, p.65.30 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (edd.), op. cit., p.46.31 M. GORLACH, op. cit., pp.65-66.32 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p.56

As far as personal pronouns are concerned Cobbett lists the second person singular thou for

the nominative case, thee for the object case, ye nominative and you objective for the second

person plural. This is, he says, how it should be, but

Common custom has set aside the rules of grammar in this case and though we in particular cases, still make use of thou and thee we generally make use of you instead of either of them. According to ancient rule and custom this is not correct; but what a whole people adopts and universally practices, must in such cases be deemed correct, and to be a superseding of ancient rule and custom.33

An 18th century unsolved problem related to personal pronouns which 19th century grammarians

inherited, regarded the choice of the correct case in sentences like « It is me/I»; or after prepositions

as in «between you and me/I». Prescriptive grammarians thought subject case was required by

logic whereas the position would suggest object case.34 Cobbett who dealt with this topic in his

section on Syntax as related to pronouns warns his readers to «Take care in using personal

pronouns, not to employ the objective case where you ought to employ the nominative»35. He goes

on to explain that in «It was some of those who came hither last night and went away this morning

who did the mischief, and not my brother and me It ought to be my brother and I» or in «Who

broke the glass? It was me. It ought to be I»36. Again «after the words than and as this error of

putting the objective for the nominative is very frequently committed as: John was very rich but

Peter was richer than him[…] it ought to be richer than he»37.

As regards the inflection of who he lists whom as its object case specifying that it has to

have a human antecedent. He then warns his readers against improper use in rule 199 of Syntax:

«The errors which are most frequent in the use of relative pronouns arise from not taking care to use

who and whom when they are respectively demanded by verbs or prepositions».38 While on which

with human antecedent he comments:

This application of the relative which with solely irrational creatures is, however, of modern date for in the Lord’s Prayer in the English Church service, we say Our Father which art in Heaven. In the American Liturgy this error has been corrected and they say Our Father who art in Heaven.39

Cobbett here sees the Anglican church as a repository of archaism and shows diachronic awareness.

33 It is worth noting here that he always addresses his son with you in the letters constituting the grammar probably for the confidential tone which naturally establishes among relations.34 M. GORLACH, op. cit., pp.66-71? It is worth noting here that he always addresses his son with you in the letters constituting the grammar probably for the confidential tone which naturally establishes among relations.

35 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p 93.36 Ibidem.37 Ibidem.38 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit., p. 51.39 Ivi, p.52

We come now to the far more complex topic of verbs. As Gorlach pointed out «variation

was still more conspicuous in verbal inflection»40 and the verb group was gaining more and more

weight in the 19th century. Cobbett’s particular concern with the English verb both in his section on

Etymology and in that on Syntax reflects the growing development of the verb phrase during this

period.

After distinguishing verbs in «active, passive and neuter» he passes on to consider «person, number

time[tense] and mode[mood] »41. One of the usual apparent inconsistencies arises when he explains

that «There are three persons but our verbs have no variation in their spelling except for the third

person singular»42 but later on, displaying the full conjugation of the verb to work, he includes

«Thou workes» as the second person singular probably in accordance with his previous inflection

of personal pronouns. He thus comments on the third person singular ending –eth: «This spelling

has long been disused»43.

Since the correct form of irregular tense formation remained a problem, following a

customary convention of his time Cobbett provides a list of irregular verbs, but unlike his

contemporaries he stands out for his liberal attitude and does not include in it verbs like burn,

burst, deal. They, he claims, are not properly irregular but regular verbs which «our bad practice of

abbreviating or shortening»44 has led unaware grammarians to consider irregular, while «the only

real irregulars are those in the first list»45.

As to tense, Cobbett open-mindedly explains that

In the Latin language the verbs change their endings as to include in the verbs themselves what we express by our auxiliary verb to have. And they have […]different endings as are required to express all those circumstances of time that we express by work, worked shall work, may work, might work, have worked, had worked, shall have worked, may have worked, might have worked; and so on

adding that English «verbs never vary their endings, to express time except the single variation from

the present to the past. […] In our compound times there is the verb to have which becomes had , or

shall have, and so on». 46

Gorlach has noticed that «the distinction between simple past and present perfect permitted less

room for personal choice and to be finally disappeared as a perfect auxiliary where it had been

dominant with verbs of motion».47 Cobbett in this case seems very modern in that he does not allow

for variation suggesting the verb to have as the only possible alternative to form what he calls

compound times. What is more, he appears to be well aware of the different shade of meaning 40 M. GORLACH, op. cit., p. 67.41 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit. p. 56-60.42 Ibidem.43 Ibidem.44 Ivi, p.67.45 Ibidem.46 Ivi, pp. 116-118. 47 M. GORLACH, op.cit., p. 81.

conveyed by the verb to be used instead of have as an auxiliary to make compound time and this is

the example he provides: « He found that the Countess was gone out of the house. That is to say

was absent out of the house, and this is nonsense. It must in this case be he found the Countess had

gone out of the house»48. As regards the double use of have to express unrealised action he thus

commented on sentences like I should have liked to have been informed of the amount of the

Exchequer Bills, still quite common at that time : «A phraseology like this can be becoming only in

those Houses, where it was proposed to relieve the distresses of the nation by setting the labourers

to dig holes one day and fill them up the next»49. Incidentally, the fact that this structure is used as a

marker of lower class speech in Dickens’s Mrs Saunders in Pickwick Papers (1837) confirms

Cobbett’s concern to avoid substandard varieties.50

Modal verbs are quickly dismissed by Cobbett as follows : «The signs may, might, can,

could, will, would shall should and must have all originally been verbs though they have now

become defective in almost all their parts, and serve only as signs to other verbs. »51. And later on in

Syntax. «I need not dwell here on the uses of will, shall, may, might, should, would can, could, and

must which uses various as they are as well known to us all as the uses of our teeth and our noses;

»52. As regards shall and will as future tense markers, a legacy of 18th century grammarians

prescribed shall for first person and will with the rest. Cobbett, probably influenced by the

American practice, stands out for his progressive attitude and though listing both shall and will in

the full conjugation of the verb work , he always addresses his son in the grammar using will for

first person singular, thus «I will now proceed to close this long and important Letter….»53.

Finally there comes the problem of the double negative, one of the most favourite targets of

18th century grammarians’ prescriptions and no more accepted in standard English. In this case

again Cobbett follows the prescriptive tradition and does not allow for alternatives. This is what he

explains in a section specifically devoted to what he considers a major fault «In our language two

negatives applied to the same verb or to the same words of any sort amount to an affirmative.[…]

Errors, as to this matter, occur most frequently…»54.

To conclude, the analysis of the linguistic data uncovered the same tension prescription-

innovation that has been noticed in his style. (see TABLE 2)

48 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit. p.116.49 Ivi, p. 118.50 M. GORLACH, op. cit., p. 8151 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit. p. 72.52 Ivi, p. 11853 Ivi, p. 60.54 Ivi, pp. 141- 142.

Cobbett’s ambivalent attitude can be accounted for in relation to eighteenth century theories on

language and mind, on prescription and standardisation 55and in particular to what Gramsci has

called «hegemony of language»56, that is the conscious use of language by the ruling classes to

foster class division. Cobbett, as a radical, perfectly understood that the division between those

who knew grammar and could write properly and those who did not was one of the most subtle

means of class manipulation and set his task of writing a grammar which could challenge this trend.

Thus, although the linguistic and stylistic analysis reveal indisputable elements of a strongly

prescriptive attitude and a marked influence of the authoritative eighteenth century tradition in his

work, these are indispensable to give the «plough boys», the «soldiers» and the «sailors» a text

enabling them to participate in the political life of their country. It had to be a means to assert their

rights, a reliable source of learning allowing them access to the «gateway to liberty» 57. As Aarts

(1994) rightly pointed out «Cobbett was not a theoretical grammarian, interested in philosophical

inquiry[…], he was a pragmatist who used his Grammar as a means to achieve his political

goals»58. Thus what seems inconsistency actually it is not59.

What emerges is Cobbett’s profound awareness of the social and political connotation of non-

standard varieties in a period in which petitions to Parliament were rejected because of their

«indecent and disrespectful» language60. As Smith pointed out

Radicals had the difficult task of not only justifying the capabilities of the disenfranchised but also of redefining the nature of language. Cobbett’s grammar emerges out of this radical tradition and his complex relation to it. Although Cobbett implies that his is a single mind opposing a monolithic tradition, the grammar was an original contribution to a group of recent works that were aware of the political implications of language theory. 61

This awareness and his arguments in favour of the Standard seem even more remarkable if

considered in the light of the recent debate on whether standard English should be regarded as the

most effective and democratic means of access to culture or as an elitist, class-based,

authoritatively-imposed variety not worth teaching in school. Significantly one of the contestants,

55 Cf. H. AARSLEFF, The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1983; S. LEONARD, The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800, New York , Russell & Russell Inc., 1962; J. MILROY – L. MILROY, Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation, London and New York, Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1991; P. S. RAY, Language Standardisation. Studies in Prescriptive Linguistics, The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1963.56 O. SMITH, op. cit. p. 31.57 Cobbett (Polititcal Register 6 December, 1817) thus commented on this topic:«I have gone into detail as to this anecdote in order to show what power a knowledge of grammar gives to man. […] and every young man who shall read what I am now writing may be assured, that he can never arrive at fame; that he can never obtain and retain any great degree of influence over the minds of other men, unless he be possessed of this branch of knowledge, which […]is the key to all the means of communicating our thoughts to others […]. It is very true that all men are not born with the same degree of capacity for acquiring knowledge. But nature has been too fair to give all the capacity to the Aristocracy». D. FREEEBORN, op. cit., p. 402. 58 F.G.A.M. AARTS, Grammar, cit., p.330. 59 Cf. L. NATTRASS, op. cit., p. «»60 D. FREEBORN, op. cit., p.39961 O. SMITH, op. cit., p.

John Honey, considers Cobbett’s life and work as an example of «the magical world of the mind

which could be opened up by standard English» in his highly controversial book Language is

Power. The Story of Standard English and its Enemies (1997)62. In it is assumed that the crusade of

a ‘liberal orthodoxy’, against standard English in favour of a more democratic multitude of

regional dialects, far from effectively protect the underprivileged, has curiously limited their access

to power, causing an irreparable social and educational damage to them. As a consequence, in his

opinion, English grammar must be prescriptive because descriptive grammars only puzzle students

and are of no use to them.

Although, in Bex’s words , «it is not at all clear that Honey sees empowerment in quite the same

way»63 as Cobbett and despite the fact that almost two centuries have passed since William

Cobbett wrote his Grammar, his call for the necessity of acquiring grammar for

A motive which, though it ought at all times to be strongly felt, ought at the present time to be felt in an extraordinary degree: I mean that desire which every man, especially every young man, should entertain to be able to assert with effects the rights and liberties of his country 64.

sounds strikingly modern and raises interesting questions as to the relationship between standard

and non-standard varieties. Furthermore, it induces the linguists to reconsider the conflict between

prescriptive and descriptive attitude to language

62 J. HONEY, Language is Power. The Story of Standard English and its Enemies, London and Boston, Faber & Faber,1997.63 T. BEX, John Honey: Language is Power: The Story of Standard English and its Enemies, Faber & Faber, London. «Applied Linguistics», 19, 3, 407-10. 64 C. NICKERSON- C. and J. W. OSBORNE (eds.), op. cit, p. 32.

TABLE 1: Style

Traditional/prescriptive features Innovative features

Title The grammar was intended “for

the Use of the Schools and of

Young Persons in general”.

“…but more especially for the

Use of Soldiers, Sailors,

Apprentices, and Plough-boys”

Dedicatory EpistleIts presence in the Grammar Dedicated to a Shoe-maker

imprisoned for sedition.

Structure Twofold partition in Etimology

and Syntax.

Epistolary form.

NamingLatin-based naming of the main

Sections of the Grammar, of

Parts of Speech and of most of

the categories describing

linguistic data.

Aversion for the so called

“Learned languages”: “This

word nominative is not a good

word. [It] has been taken from

Latin”

Attitude towards variation:

-Labelling of ungrammatical

patterns

He is prescriptive as regards the

written medium.

Right/wrong dichotomy. Use of

terms like error, mistake,

corruption.

He is liberal as regards

pronunciation.

- use of modals Prevalence of must

ExemplificationFalse grammar to point at

common faults made by

illustrious people.

Politically “loaded” examples to

illustrate rules

TABLE 2: Linguistic dataTraditional/prescriptive features

Innovative features

Noun Phrase Genitive marker after stem- final –s. He suggests to add only the elision mark after plurals and proper nouns.

Adjective “When the positive contains more than two syllables the degree must be formed by the use of more and most”

Apparently he allows for variation (“all adjectives may be formed by the use of more and most”)

Pronouns (pers.): morphology

-(pers.): syntax

He gives the rule : thou/thee for 2nd pers. sing.Ye/you for 2nd .pers. plur.

Subject case in sentences like “It is me/I” or “…..between you and me/I”

He comments on it:” custom has set aside the rules”. Incidentally he addesses his son with You in the grammar.

Verb phrase:-Person

-Conjugation

-Tense

He gives thou workest as the 2nd

p.sing.

He includes a list of irregular verbs in the grammar.

He stigmatises double have to express unrealised action.

He affirms that there is no variation except for 3rd p. sing

He does not consider verbs like burn, burst, deal as properly irregulars.-He seems aware of Latin synthetic way of forming tenses versus the English analytic one. -Use of have in present perfect-Shall or will indifferently to form future tense

Double negative Not allowed: “error”.

REFERENCES

Primary Sources

Nickerson, C., C. and J. W Osborne (eds.), 1983, William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English

Language (the 1818 New York first edition with passages added in 1819, 1823, 1828), Rodopi,

Amsterdam.

Secondary Sources

Aarsleff, H., 1983, The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860, University of Minnesota Press,

Minneapolis.

Aarts, F.G.A.M., 1986, “William Cobbett: radical, reactionary and poor man’s grammarian”,

Neophilologus, 70, 603-614.

Aarts, F.G.A.M., 1994, “William Cobbett: Grammar of the English Language”, Neuphilologische

Mitteilungen, 95, 319-332.

Bex, T. 1999, “John Honey: Language is Power: The Story of Standard English and its Enemies,

Faber & Faber, London.” Applied Linguistics, 19, 3, 407-10.

Blake, N. F., 1996, A History of the English Language, Macmillan, London.

Cole, G. D. H., 1947 The Life of William Cobbett, Home & van Thal, London.

Freeborn, D., 1992, From Old English to Standard English, MacMillan, London.

Gorlach, M. 1999, English in Nineteenth century England. An Introduction, CUP, Cambridge

Honey, J., 1997, Language is Power. The Story of Standard English and its Enemies, Faber &

Faber, London and Boston.

Howatt, A. P. R. , 1984, A History of English Language Teaching, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Leitner, G., 1986, “English traditional grammars in the nineteenth century” in Kastowsky , D. and

A. Szwedek (eds.) Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, Mouton de

Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam .

Leonard, S., 1962, The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800, Russell & Russel

Inc., New York.

Linn, A.R.

Michael, I., 1987, The Teaching of English from the Sixteenth Century to 1870, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Milroy , J. and Milroy, L., 1991, Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and

Standardisation, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London and New York.

Mugglestone L., 1997 “Cobbett’s Grammar: William, James Paul and the politics of

prescriptivism”, The Review of English Studies NS, 48, 192:47-88.

Nattrass, L., 1995, William Cobbett. The Politics of Style, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ray, P. S., 1963, Language Standardisation. Studies in Prescriptive Linguistics, Mouton & Co.,

The Hague.

Salmon, V., 1985, William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English Language (the 1818 New York first

edition with passages added in 1819, 1820, 1828). Ed. by Nickerson, C., C. and J. W Osborne 1983,

Rodopi, Amsterdam.

Salmon, V., 1986, William Cobbett: A Grammar of the English Language […]to which are added

Six Lessons.. Ed. by Burchfield, R., 1984, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sambrook, J., 1973, William Cobbett, Routledge & Keagan Paul, London and Boston

Smith, O., 1984, The Politics of Language 1791-1819, Clarendon Press, Oxford

Spater, G., 1982, William Cobbett. The Poor Man’s Friend, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Vallins, G. H., 1954, “Cobbett’s Grammar”, English, X, 56, 48-53.

Williams, R., 1983, Cobbett, Oxford University Press, Oxford.