general, Research

What’s the problem?

Hi, my name is Dr Carmen Ebner and I am a sociolinguist. In particular, I study language variation and change, and focus on language ideologies, prescriptivism and attitudes towards usage problems. At this point, I might have lost some of you. No matter whether you’re a linguist or not. Usage problems? Prescriptivism? Really? Is that even genuine research? Don’t worry. This blog post isn’t a rant. But let me give you a bit more background on usage problems and on what the real problem is.

While some of you might have heard of split infinitives, dangling participles, and double negatives, others might only have a vague idea of what these terms mean. Some of you might even have strong opinions on their acceptability. Opinions and knowledge aside, all three of these are prime examples of linguistic features whose standardness has long been disputed. In scientific literature, the split infinitive and its likes are often referred to as usage problems¹. But mind, not every grammar lapse, gaffe and mishap is part of this somewhat mysterious category. What then are usage problems?

Essential criteria used to characterise usage problems are their widespread and fairly frequent use as well as being subject to public debate. While these three criteria proposed by Ilson are useful to an extent, they do not go far enough in circumscribing what constitutes a usage problem and what not. To give you an example which you have likely encountered if not even produced yourself, consider langauge.


Langauge on Twitter

Doing a quick google and corpus search, it seems as if this spelling variant of language is indeed fairly widespread and frequent. Public discussion seems to predominantly take the shape of social media commentary and entries in online wiktionaries. Applying Ilson’s criteria, langauge could thus be classed a usage problem as all three criteria are met.

Now let’s compare this to a slightly different linguistic feature: would of. This feature includes the use of of in place of have in modal verb constructions such as would/could/should have. Due to the similarity of the two words – ‘ve and of – when spoken, the use of would of has unsurprisingly become frequent and widespread in writing as well. The main difference between the two examples I am using here lies in the public discussion. While public discussions on langauge often stress the ordinariness of this misspelling and convey a humorous note, thus lessening the perceived severity of this misspelling, the discourse evolving around would of is strikingly different and without question more negative. Modal verb constructions such as would of seem to be condemned as outright incorrect simply because of is also a preposition.

woudl of could of should of

Reddit user: “If you do this, we are enemies”

Without doubt public discussion plays a vital role in the perception of stigmatised and alleged nonstandard linguistic features and thus also in the circumscription of this group of features. There is a particular subgroup of usage problems which has acquired some notoriety or almost mythological status over the course of time. The split infinitive is part of this subgroup and is often referred to as an old chestnut or a Zombie rule, as aptly described by Arnold Zwicky. Having gained some prominence among the general public, Zombie rules are recurring components in advice literature on how to use English properly. While there are some excellent linguistic contributions² to this genre, these efforts are, unfortunately, few and far between. The lack of such studies debunking usage myths and investigating the perceptions and attitudes of the general public facilitates and perpetuates the status of linguistic features as stigmatised, incorrect, improper and nonstandard linguistic features. It is not difficult to see a link between the usage guide market being dominated by often self-appointed language experts and guardians of the English language and apparently undying Zombie rules finding their way back to the speech community.

So, what’s the problem? The problem at hand is not the existence of alleged usage problems such as the split infinitive, dangling participles, double negatives or would of. The issue lies more with the mostly half-hearted engagement and treatment of prescriptivism by linguists. In the past six years, attitudes towards stigmatised linguistic features such as the ones mentioned in this blog post have been the centre of my research focus and interests. Even though every linguist (I would hedge this with almost, but I am sure it’s every) has an opinion on prescriptivism and usage problems, the subject is still widely treated like a pariah in the discipline³. Every now and again, I earn somewhat belittling smiles and raised eyebrows from colleagues when sharing my research interests, as if studying prescriptivism is like committing high treason against linguistics. As if this was only a legitimate pastime for an armchair grammarian. Stubborn as I am, I refuse to accept this. To research language and, especially as a sociolinguist, how it is used by its speakers and works in society are fundamentals on which linguistics is based. After all, shouldn’t linguists describe all aspects of language and discourse?

¹Ilson, R. (1985). Usage problems in British and American English. In S. Greenbaum (ed.), The English Language Today. Oxford: The Pergamon Press. 166-182.

² See for instance Peters, P. (2004). The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: CUP.

³ Don’t get me wrong, there are wonderful linguists out there working on prescriptivism in different varieties.


Finding my place

It’s been a while since I’ve shared some research news, let alone written a blog post. In an endeavour to regain some of my confidence as a researcher and human being (I’m sure a lot of us have fallen prey to the imposter syndrome and the somewhat unexpected early mid-life crisis at the age of 30, right?), I am on the search to find my place and voice again. In the past two years, I’ve completed my PhD project on attitudes towards stigmatised language features in British English, moved from Leiden, the Netherlands, to London, and started to work as a lecturer at Queen Mary University of London. While my job mainly involves teaching duties, I have had the chance to work on some publications, present my findings at lecturers, workshops and conferences, and start new research projects of which you’ll read more about on this blog soon.

My passion for teaching and research has led me to blindly idealise academia for a long time. But things are far from perfect. Job instability has undoubtedly had an impact on my well-being. Although I am not saying “Auf Wiedersehen” to academia, I am exploring all options. In academia as well as outside academia. In Great Britain and abroad. On this blog, I’ll report on my findings from these explorations in the hope that they might help the one or the other who is struggling with finding their place as well.

Now don’t abandon this blog just yet, if you are only interested in the latest prescriptivism talk. Rest assured, there will be plenty of it on here. After all, that’s my specialty. So, I hope you bear with me and my rusty blogging skills. I am sure blogging is like riding a bike. It just takes courage to get back on it.

general, News, survey

Key player media?

Since I am particularly interested in the media’s role in the later stages of the standardisation process of English, I would like to invite you to participate in a brief survey which also serves as a starting point for a bigger investigation of this subject matter.

The aim of this survey is to identify current attitudes towards the language use of the media. While the majority of questions deals with traditional print media in Great Britain, especially national daily newspapers, a few general questions involve also broadcast media (TV and radio) and digital media (Twitter, blogs, etc.).  The survey, which will take roughly 10 minutes, is available here and your participation is, of course, anonymous and highly appreciated.




Excuse me, I am terribly sorry to bother you, but …

The data collection is soon coming to an end and it is time to say a big THANK YOU to everyone who has filled in the survey, shared it with friends and nagged their family about completing it. The feedback has been amazing! If you haven’t filled in the questionnaire yet, then do give it a go.

What I have learnt from my fieldwork trips so far is that administration can be an utterly annoying and terribly time-consuming necessary evil. In order to avoid the trouble, I would like to ask you (yes, you) for your help:

  • Do you live in the Greater London Area, Cambridge or Oxford?
  • Are you interested in an interview and perception tests dealing with English language usage?
  • Do you know of any websites, fora or the like through which I could find possible informants?

In case you answered one or preferably all three of the above answers with yes, then please leave a comment below or send me an email (

I really appreciate your help!

British English Translation:

Excuse me, dearest blog reader. I am terribly sorry to bother you, but I wonder if you would mind helping me, as long as it’s no trouble of course. Thank you very much!



general, News, usage features

Appropriate Usage – You decide!

The moment of truth has come. It is time to find out what YOU think about the English language and its usage? Is it fit as a fiddle? Or is it going down the drain? What do you consider acceptable and appropriate usage?

Let’s find out by filling in the online questionnaire!



In case you live in the UK and are interested in participating in the next steps of the survey, please contact me for more information. 


Finding the fun in prescriptivism

Spelling makes the difference

Spelling makes the difference

One might think that reading too many articles on language pedantry and disputed usage items would, sooner or later, take its toll. But surprisingly, studying prescriptivism and descriptivism has so far not only caused the occasional head shaking and nodding, but also giggles and fits of laughter. To share some of my findings with you, I have put together a small collection of links which I hope you enjoy as much as I do.

Finding good grammar jokes is not always easy. But here are two good ones:

The past, the present, and the future walked into a bar. It was tense.

That do you say when you are comforting a grammar nazi?   –    There, their, they’re.

There are plenty of funny cartoons and memes on punctuation, grammar, and usage items on the internet. My colleague Morana Lukac has created a Pintrest board with some graphical highlights such as the ones below.

Not so funnyBiceps

Similar graphics can be found on the facebook page of Grammarly, a grammar checker. Mocking signs such as the one below can be done in such a well-considered and accomplished manner.

Mocking door signs

For those of you, who are familiar with The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White, the following video is a must.

If you want to find out, whether you lean towards prescriptivism or descriptivism, you can take a test. But beware: take it with a pinch of salt!

As you can see, the prescriptivism and descriptivism debate bears a huge potential to find humour and there is more to discover.


It’s all about elocution, elocution, elocution…

Although slightly off-topic, these five minutes are just too good and interesting to leave unposted. Aired on BBC’s Newsnight, this report illustrates how some famous Britons have changed their accents over the course of time.

Has Becks gone posh?

The way we speak tells us so much more about us than one might think. Being a tool for creating authenticity, inclusion or exclusion from a speaker community, accents are a powerful, tricky, little thing. Non-native speakers often struggle hard to sound as British or as American as possible. Institutions such as the London Speech Workshop offer, amongst others, courses to ‘soften a regional accent or a foreign one‘.  But which accent should we use as a role model? (Read the post on Setting Standards for more information on this issue) How do politicians use accents and for what reasons? Has Beckham really started to talk posh? And what about his spouse Victoria aka Posh Spice?  As part of a study investigating the impact of certain circumstances on speech, the way the Beckhams talk was investigated. Find out more here!

general, usage features

Keep it simple and …?

There is probably no doubt that CMC (computer-mediated communication) has contributed to the rapid spread and innovation of linguistic terms. One example, which I have touched upon elsewhere on this blog, is the phenomenon of shortened forms. Shortening words or converting them into other word classes, known as conversion, are nothing new. But are amaze and totes here to stay?  Could it be that deets, ridic and legit are the new OMG and LOL?

The evolution of communication?

The language use on Twitter, known as twitterese, is characterised by its 140 character limit, thus challenging Twitter users to either keep it simple and short or to become creative. Being creative with language has not always been welcomed, as could also be seen with the appearance of txt-speak. Who has not heard of rumours or myths about the decay of language?

According to the KISS principle, you can either think of shortened forms along the lines of keeping it simple and stupid, simple and short, simple and silly, short and silly… Whatevs you think about these creations, let me know and fill in the 3rd usage poll on shortened forms!


Setting Standards

Last week I attended the PG Linguistics Workshop at the University of St Andrews, which allowed me to present Proper English Usage as well as to spread the word about the Bridging the Unbridgeable Project. What became clear during the discussions with other PGs and academics is that standard language is among linguists, without doubt, a hot topic which is often handled with kid gloves to ensure that no one gets offended. But why is that so? Why does standard language or even the mere notion of it provoke such a divide?

To answer these questions, standard language, in this case Standard English, has to be defined first. Easier said than done. The lack of finding an appropriate definition of what Standard English is makes this issue even more delicate. During the panel discussion it was agreed that accepting the notion of a written standard in English was easier and probably made more sense than attempting a definition of Standard English in general.

Due to the great variety of dialects and accents, a spoken Standard English nowadays almost seems undemocratic. In the past, RP (Received Pronunciation), a variety spoken by less than 3 % of the entire population, was considered the spoken standard of English. Even today some hold the same view and thus RP can still be found as a model in English language teaching.

The Great British class calculator: What class are you? s

The association of the standard language with a prestigious upper class  is a “tradition” which is gradually broken by many. The development ofEstuary English, a variety of English considered to be the middle ground between RP and popular London speech, as well as the recent economic crisis appear to have had a considerable impact on the traditional class system as well as the linguistic landscape in Great Britain. 

Nevertheless, this proves that the notion of standard language is continuoulsy associated with power and ideology.  History has shown that the literati or those in power often defined what language was and how it was supposed to be used. These authorities in language have gradually shifted. From once educated or renowned authors such as Dryden, Shakespeare, Swift, authority in language has shifted towards institutions such as the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation).

BBC English, another spoken variant of English, is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “a form of standard spoken English associated with BBC announcers”. Although spoken varieties are often described and classified as a standard, it remains questionable whether the population agrees.

Measuring standards

The apparent becomes obvious; defining Standard English is not a piece of cake. However, an interesting conclusion was reached during the discussion; no matter whether one believes in it or not, there is no doubt that everyone has some kind of ‘yardstick of standard English’ according to which one measures what he or she believes to be correct, appropriate and/or acceptable in English.

Do you agree or have you found a suitable definition of what Standard English is? How general could such a definition be?

general, usage features

Totes amaze!

I have already reported on my amazement with amaze in the Bridging the Unbridgeable blog. Thinking it was clearly an example of American English, I was surprised to find this T-shirt in a Primark store in Scotland. Not only does it display the word amaze in big white letters, but it also includes another interesting word: totes.

Totes amaze T-shirt

Totes amaze T-shirt

Totes, a short form of totally, is frequently found in the company of amaze. The issue of Americanisms, American English words taken over into other languages or varieties, has been bothering the one or the other British English native speaker. Words and phrases such as to wait on or transportation have caused some emotional responses.

Recently, a tendency to shorten words can undoubtedly be detected. Whether totes and amaze are going to be fully adopted into British English and thus become legit words remains to be seen. The Oxford Dictionary included totes already into its online version. Is this a step towards its legitimisation?