Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 19:33:35 EST

From: Terry Lynn Irons t.irons[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MSUACAD.MOREHEAD-ST.EDU

Subject: Re: Looking for some useful arguments



Vicki Rosenzweig writes,



Can anyone suggest an argument that will convince copyeditors

(of whom I am one, but a somewhat atypical one) that we/they can't

decide to change the language, and neither can an ad agency or

the US congress, because there are a half billion speakers of English,

and we're only a few hundred people on the copyediting mailing list?





Vicki's question is extremely important, for it resonates in several

contexts. An answer to her particular question requires

looking at the assumptions/implications of her question and the

motives/goals of her copyeditor audience. Her question assumes

that "we/they can't decide to change the language, and neither can

an ad agency or the US congress." Yet language change occurs, and

the change is connected in some way to some innovation by some member

of some social network. Ad agencies HAVE affected the lexical

phraseology of contemporary speakers of English, and some of those

lexical changes will stick. Just do it.



In a larger critical sense (a la Foucault), the discourse of

consumerism, emanating from ad agencies, affects not only our

language, but also controls the subject positions within

which we find ourselves.



Language planning--shaping attitudes and behaviors of language

use--goes on every day in the educational institutions of this

country as well as others. Even though these educators may not

change what people do in specific cases, they certainly shape

what people think of what they do. And in many cases we do

change what people do.



So the basic assumption of Vicki's question may turn out

to be wrong.



Even though there may be more like a billion users of English

for whatever purposes, the language behavior of a few can have

a significant impact on the norms of the language (ALL OF THIS

QUESTION RELATES TO STYLE, NOT THE UNDERLYING REPRESENTATIONAL

SYSTEM THAT MAKES LANGUAGE POSSIBLE) in certain formal public

contexts. So that brings us back to the goals of copyeditors.

If they want to ferret out especially pernicious sexist

language, I am all for them. Their specific edittings may not

change behavior, but the discussion of the issue will have some

effect over time. And as a result, the language may change.



It really sounds like these copyeditors favor something that

Vicki doesn't agree with. If she were more forthcoming,

some one of us might could be more helpful.



Terry



=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)

Terry Lynn Irons t.irons[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]msuacad.morehead-st.edu

Voice Mail: (606) 783-5164

Snail Mail: UPO 604 Morehead, KY 40351

(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)