You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
How people respond to language change is itself a subject of linguistic study — and, for AQA, one of the most heavily examined parts of the change topic. Reactions to new words, shifting grammar, and changing pronunciation are never neutral; they reveal deep assumptions about language, society, and identity. When a newspaper columnist rages that the apostrophe is dying or that teenagers are "murdering" English, the column tells us far more about the writer's attitudes than about the language itself, and learning to read those attitudes critically — to treat a complaint as data rather than as a verdict — is the central skill this lesson develops.
For the specification, understanding attitudes to language change is essential because Section A asks you to evaluate competing perspectives rather than simply report them. You are expected to demonstrate critical awareness of the great organising opposition of the field — prescriptivism versus descriptivism — and to handle it with nuance rather than as a cartoon of heroes and villains. The crude version ("prescriptivists wrong, descriptivists right") will not reach the top bands; the sophisticated version recognises that prescriptive attitudes are themselves a social phenomenon worth analysing, that descriptivism does not mean "anything goes", and that the whole debate is, at bottom, about power: who gets to decide what counts as correct, and whose language is valued while whose is stigmatised.
Two figures dominate the AQA approach to this topic and must be known in detail: Jean Aitchison, whose three metaphors for prescriptivist anxiety are explicitly examinable, and James and Lesley Milroy, whose concept of the "complaint tradition" frames the whole history of linguistic grumbling. Around them sit a cast of named prescriptivists and descriptivists whose positions you can marshal as evidence. We begin with Aitchison, because her three metaphors give you a ready-made framework for analysing almost any negative reaction to change.
Jean Aitchison (b. 1938) is one of the most important figures on the AQA specification, and it is vital to be clear about her position from the outset, because it is frequently misremembered. Aitchison is a descriptivist: she does not believe language is decaying, and she presents the three metaphors below not as views she holds but as prescriptivist myths she is exposing and rejecting. In her 1996 BBC Reith Lectures, published as The Language Web, and in her book Language Change: Progress or Decay? (1981, 4th edition 2013), she identifies three recurring metaphors that people reach for when they react negatively to change — and then dismantles each one. A weak answer attributes the metaphors to Aitchison as if she endorsed them; a strong answer makes clear that she catalogues them precisely in order to refute them. These three metaphors are explicitly examinable and must be understood thoroughly, both as descriptions of a common attitude and as targets of Aitchison's critique.
The damp spoon metaphor describes the view that language change is caused by laziness — speakers cannot be bothered to speak "properly" and take linguistic short-cuts, like someone who puts a damp spoon back in the sugar bowl rather than drying it.
Examples of this attitude:
Aitchison's response: Language change is not caused by laziness. Sound changes such as assimilation and elision are natural phonological processes that occur in every language, including the most prestigious varieties — RP speakers elide and assimilate constantly without anyone accusing them of sloth. If "laziness" really drove change, we would expect it to be random and chaotic; in fact sound change is strikingly systematic, applying to whole classes of sounds in regular environments, which is the opposite of what carelessness would produce. Aitchison also points out that so-called "lazy" pronunciations frequently require just as much articulatory effort as the "correct" ones — the effort is simply distributed differently, not reduced. The glottal stop in bu'er (butter) is not a feeble version of /t/; it is a different, fully controlled articulation. The "laziness" charge, then, is not a description of how speech works but a moral judgement dressed as a phonetic one.
The crumbling castle metaphor describes the view that language was once a perfect or near-perfect structure that is now falling into disrepair through misuse and neglect.
Examples of this attitude:
Aitchison's response: There never was a "golden age" of perfect English from which the language has fallen. Every generation has complained about the speech of the next, in an unbroken line: Jonathan Swift complained in 1712 about the "corruption" of English and demanded an academy to fix it; Samuel Johnson worried about decline in the 1750s; the Victorians fretted; and the cycle continues today. If all these complaints had been accurate, English would have crumbled into incoherence centuries ago — instead it has become the most widely used language in human history. The very persistence of the complaint is evidence against it: a castle that has been "crumbling" for five hundred years was never really crumbling at all. Aitchison adds that the metaphor smuggles in a false premise — that language was once deliberately built as a perfect structure — whereas in reality language has always been a self-organising system in continuous, gradual flux, with no architect and no original blueprint to fall away from.
The infectious disease metaphor describes the view that language change spreads like a disease, with "bad" usage infecting otherwise healthy speakers who "catch" errors from others.
Examples of this attitude:
Aitchison's response: Language change does spread through social contact — innovations pass from speaker to speaker and from group to group — but this is a wholly normal feature of human communication, not a pathology to be quarantined. The disease metaphor loads a neutral process with sinister connotations: it implies that change is something healthy speakers "catch" against their will and that some varieties are "contagions" threatening the body of "pure" English. But languages have always influenced one another, and English more than most: it is itself the product of massive, repeated borrowing from Latin, French, Old Norse, and dozens of other languages, and is all the richer for it. To recast this ordinary, enriching process of contact and diffusion as "infection" tells us only that the speaker disapproves of the change; it adds nothing to our understanding of how the change actually works. Aitchison's underlying point across all three metaphors is the same: each is a value judgement masquerading as a description, and the linguist's job is to strip away the metaphor and look at what is really happening.
Several prominent public figures have argued that English is in decline and that standards must be maintained:
The BBC journalist and broadcaster, in Lost for Words: The Mangling and Manipulating of the English Language (2004), argued that English is being "mangled" by politicians, advertisers, and technology. Key claims include:
| Claim | Example Given |
|---|---|
| Political language obscures truth | Euphemisms like collateral damage, friendly fire, enhanced interrogation |
| Texting damages literacy | Abbreviations like c u l8r replace standard spelling |
| Jargon is exclusionary | Management-speak: going forward, blue-sky thinking, thinking outside the box |
| Grammar is declining | "Less" instead of "fewer"; split infinitives; dangling modifiers |
Evaluation: Humphrys is a revealing case precisely because his complaints are mixed — some defensible, some not — and a strong answer separates the strands rather than dismissing him wholesale. His concerns about political euphemism are shared by many linguists: George Orwell made strikingly similar arguments in "Politics and the English Language" (1946), and unease about language used to obscure or deceive corresponds to what Milroy and Milroy call legitimate "Type 2" complaints about clarity. His claims about texting and grammar decline, however, are not supported by the evidence. Crystal (2008) demonstrated that text abbreviations constitute only a small proportion of messages and that texting ability correlates positively, not negatively, with literacy; and the grievance about less versus fewer or the split infinitive polices invented or eroded distinctions rather than describing any real loss of communicative power. The lesson is that prescriptivism is not monolithic: the same commentator can be right to worry about euphemism and wrong to panic about teenagers' phones, and the analyst's job is to weigh each claim on its merits.
In Gwynne's Grammar (2013), Gwynne argues that grammar is "the science of using words rightly" and that correct grammar is essential for clear thinking. He presents traditional prescriptive rules (no split infinitives, no sentence-final prepositions) as absolute standards.
Evaluation: Gwynne's approach reflects traditional prescriptivism in an unusually pure and confident form — he goes so far as to claim that poor grammar leads to poor thinking and even to unhappiness. Linguists such as Crystal and Pinker point out that many of Gwynne's "rules" have no basis in the history of English and rest on Latin models imposed on a Germanic language; the supposed bans on the split infinitive and the sentence-final preposition are the clearest cases. The deeper objection is that Gwynne presents social conventions as logical absolutes, treating the prestige written standard as the only legitimate English and recasting register and dialect differences as errors of reasoning.
Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves (2003) was a surprise bestseller arguing, with comic indignation, for "zero tolerance" of punctuation errors — most famously the greengrocer's apostrophe (apple's for apples). Her book is useful exam material precisely because it sits on the boundary between serious prescriptivism and entertainment.
Evaluation: Truss raises a legitimate point — that punctuation conventions aid clarity, and that careless punctuation can genuinely create ambiguity (the title joke turns on a misplaced comma). But the "zero tolerance" framing treats punctuation as a fixed moral code rather than a set of historically contingent conventions, a point David Crystal makes at length in Making a Point (2015): English punctuation has changed continuously and was never governed by a single consistent logic. The popularity of Truss's book is itself a piece of evidence for Milroy and Milroy's complaint tradition — the public appetite for indignation about declining standards is perennial, and it sells.
Crystal, one of the most prolific and accessible linguists of the modern era, has consistently argued for a descriptive approach to language across dozens of books and broadcasts, making him the descriptivist most likely to be quoted in an examination context. Key works include:
| Work | Key Argument |
|---|---|
| The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (1995, 3rd edition 2019) | Comprehensive reference work demonstrating the richness and variety of English |
| Language and the Internet (2001, 2nd edition 2006) | Internet language is a new variety, not a corruption; it requires and develops linguistic creativity |
| Txtng: The Gr8 Db8 (2008) | Texting does not damage literacy; abbreviations are a small proportion of texts; texting ability correlates with literacy |
| The Story of English in 100 Words (2011) | Language change is natural, creative, and enriching |
| Making a Point: The Pernickety Story of English Punctuation (2015) | Punctuation conventions are historical accidents, not logical necessities |
Crystal's central argument is that language change is natural, inevitable, and creative. He does not argue that standards are unimportant — he acknowledges readily that Standard English is expected, and useful, in formal contexts — but he insists that non-standard varieties are equally valid linguistically and that change should be studied rather than condemned. His treatment of text messaging in Txtng: The Gr8 Db8 (2008) is the model case study to deploy against the panic that technology is "ruining" English. Crystal marshals evidence that abbreviations make up only a small proportion of the words in a typical message, that most texting is in ordinary spelling, that abbreviation is in any case centuries old (he cites forms such as IOU), and — most strikingly — that the ability to text fluently correlates positively with literacy, because abbreviating a word like gr8 actually requires a sophisticated awareness of how the word sounds. The conclusion is that texting is creative play with language, not the symptom of decline its critics imagine. Because the examiner can set a contemporary text-message or social-media stimulus, Crystal's argument is one of the most useful single resources in the whole topic.
In The Language Instinct (1994) and The Sense of Style (2014), Pinker argues:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.