Founding Grammars

by Rosemarie Ostler

  A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language represents the culmination of Webster’s thinking about English over twenty years. When he wrote the book, he was still in thrall to British linguistic philosopher John Horne Tooke’s theory that all English words—including prepositions, conjunctions, adjectives, and adverbs—originated as Anglo-Saxon nouns and verbs. Part of his purpose was to reanalyze English grammar according to this idea. Webster’s preface asks rhetorically, “Have we not Grammars enough already?” He answers with a firm no, “for if the theory … unfolded in Horne Tooke’s ‘Diversions of Purley,’ is well founded, we have not hitherto had any correct Grammar.”28 As Webster has seen nothing in new grammar books except “fresh editions of the same errors,” he intends to construct a grammar based on true principles of the language.

  Webster was not writing for scholars only. He planned to market A Philosophical and Practical Grammar as a textbook. He organized it in typical grammar book style, beginning with the alphabet and including the usual sections on parts of speech (“Etymology”), sentence structure (“Syntax”), and pronunciation (“Prosody”). Webster also included many examples of false syntax and the usual type of parsing exercise. Over this basic foundation, however, he built a highly idiosyncratic grammatical edifice.

  Webster’s radical remodeling begins with the basic building blocks. He explains in the preface that, in order to more accurately describe “the true state” of English, he has had to change the names of most parts of speech. While he is aware that the names have been customary since classical times, “in the sciences prescription cannot legalize error.”29

  Webster divides words into two classes—primary and secondary. In the primary category are verbs and nouns—the words on which the rest of the language depends. He keeps the term verb because he can’t think of another one that is more descriptive, but he relabels nouns as names. The secondary category covers the remaining parts of speech. All except prepositions are renamed. These include substitutes (pronouns), attributes (adjectives), modifiers (adverbs), and connectives (conjunctions).

  Webster then discusses each part of speech, often exploring its origins and usage in lengthy footnotes. His attacks on other grammarians typically appear in these notes. His usual method is to cite an example sentence or statement from another grammar book and then argue that it’s wrong. Although Webster rails against other grammarians generally, he singles out Murray for special abuse. His hostility probably stemmed at least partly from frustration over his declining book sales. English Grammar, Adapted to Different Classes of Learners was inexorably pushing Grammatical Institute, Part II out of schoolrooms and homes.

  The attacks on Murray begin in the preface. Webster mentions in a footnote that English grammar books have not shown much improvement since the days of Charles II. He admits that Lowth has “supplied some valuable criticisms,” but then says dismissively, “Murray, not having mounted to the original sources of information, and professing only to select and arrange the rules and criticisms of preceding writers, has furnished little or nothing new.”30

  Webster again compares Murray unfavorably with Lowth in his discussion of a and an. This extended footnote gives a taste of the book’s overall tone. Webster starts by explaining that grammarians have normally labeled these two words indefinite articles, in contrast to the definite the, arguing that they don’t identify one specific person or thing. Webster disagrees. He believes that because a and an do limit a noun to a single item or individual they constitute “the most definite word imaginable.”

  Webster then argues his point in more detail. He quotes Lowth’s definition of a—“A is used in a vague sense to point out one single thing of the kind, in other respects indeterminate”—and follows it with Murray’s definition—“A is styled the indefinite article; it is used in a vague sense to point out one single thing of the kind, in other respects indeterminate.” He comments tartly, “So great scholars write, and so their disciples copy!”

  He notes that Lowth’s book is titled A Short Introduction to English Grammar and wonders whether Lowth would agree that the A in this instance refers to something indeterminate. He believes that Lowth would consider his book a very specific thing. To cap his argument he continues sarcastically, “Suppose a man to have received a severe wound, a fracture of the leg, or of the skull; however indeterminate the man may be, his grammars will hardly convince him that a broken head or leg is a very indeterminate thing.”31

  Like many of the book’s other extended explorations of the true nature of a word, this one does not have any practical application. Webster has committed himself to a perverse interpretation of a and an, but he isn’t suggesting that they should be used differently. He just thinks that they should be labeled differently.

  Anti-Murray footnotes are scattered throughout the book. Webster quotes Murray’s rule that the phrase as follows should always be singular—The rules are as follows, not The rules are as follow. Then he huffs, “On this passage, which is an error from beginning to end, I will just remark that had it been written in the days of Johnson and Lowth, the errors it contains must have been pardoned.… But to frame such an explanation … after the publication of the ‘Diversions of Purley’ admits of no apology.” Webster also disagrees with Murray about the proper form for joint possessives. Webster believes that when several people possess a thing, each possessor gets an ’s—It was my father’s, mother’s, and uncle’s opinion. He then notes, “The contrary rule in Murray is egregiously wrong, as exemplified in this phrase: ‘This was my father, mother, and uncle’s advice.’ This is not English.” Never mind that in both cases the weight of consensus was—and still is—on Murray’s side.32

  A Philosophical and Practical Grammar was hopelessly unsuited to classroom use. Besides the unfamiliar terminology and long digressions on word origins, Webster continued to push his unorthodox ideas about usage. As he did in Dissertations on the English Language several years earlier, he supports using who in Who did she speak to?, saying, “This idiom is not merely colloquial; it is found in the writings of our best authors.” He still believes that It is me is grammatical and accepts the use of whose with nonhumans.

  Webster also advocates some unusual plurals. He writes, “Women is one of the grossest errors in our language. The true original plural is wimmen.” He encourages English-style plurals with common Latin words—focuses, mediums, funguses instead of the more usual (at that time) foci, media, fungi. He insists that when you refers to only one person, the following verb should be was. Referring to the trend toward replacing thee and thou with you, he argues, “If a word, once exclusively plural, becomes by universal use the sign of individuality, it must take its place in the singular number.” Webster backs up his argument with examples from print sources, including contemporary court transcripts—“Was you there when the gun was fired?”33

  In Webster’s opinion, it’s only a matter of time before this usage becomes completely acceptable. He says, “The compilers of grammar condemn the use of was with you—but in vain. The practice is universal, except among men who learn the language by books.”34 Webster was wrong about you was. It was fairly common in his day, but became increasingly unacceptable as time went on. Standard grammar books continued to reject it, along with Webster’s other pet usages.

  If Webster had hoped to wean large numbers of Americans away from Murray’s grammar, he was disappointed. A Philosophical and Practical Grammar sold poorly, although a second edition appeared in 1822. The reactions of an 1808 reviewer express what many readers probably felt about the book. The reviewer rejects Webster’s novel terms on the ground that they are impractical. If grammar rules are arbitrary anyway, he asks, what is the use of confusing people by changing the terminology? “The parts of speech” he argues, “seem like the tools of a mechanick; and if Mr. Webster would have us call a gimlet a perforator, we see not how it will better perform its original office.”35

  He is also repelled by the “ven
eration” in which Webster holds “the language of the vulgar.” He quotes Webster’s passages on double negatives and it is me without comment, assuming that their faulty reasoning is obvious. He also rejects focuses, radiuses, and similar plurals. He admits that “had we a new language to form,” the inclusion of you was would make sense. Since you were is already established, however, it seems best to keep it. He concludes with a ringing affirmation of current grammatical standards. “We … believe that our language will be the same three hundred years hence,… in spite of the exertions of Mr. Webster.… We scorn the notion of an American tongue, or of gaining our idiom from the mouths of the illiterate.”36 Many people reading the review would have nodded their heads in agreement.

  In 1828, two years after Murray’s death, Webster brought out his American Dictionary of the English Language, with a compact version of his 1807 grammar included at the front. Here Murray’s shortcomings get another airing. Webster introduces the grammar section by telling readers, “In the year 1803, I received a letter from Lindley Murray, with a copy of his Grammar.” He quotes Murray’s letter in full. He then explains how his changing view of the structure of English led him to write A Philosophical and Practical Grammar, partly as a response to Murray.

  Webster further explains that he sent Murray a copy of the book when it was first published, but later learned from Murray’s friends that he never received it. Webster is convinced that Murray nonetheless read the book. In the very next edition of Murray’s own grammar, which appeared in 1808, Murray admits that he “examined the most respectable publications on the subject of grammar that had recently appeared,” and accordingly had been able to “extend and improve” his own work. In tones of controlled outrage, Webster fumes, “On carefully comparing this work with my own Grammar, I found most of his improvements were selected from my book.”

  Webster goes on to claim that Murray borrowed from at least thirty passages of Webster’s book, “so incorporated into his work that no person except myself would detect the plagiarisms without a particular view to this object.” Webster does not identify any of the plagiarisms. He concludes by saying that because Murray has only given Webster credit for one extended quotation—Webster’s system for classifying verbs—American students are unaware that they are “learning my principles in Murray’s Grammar.”37

  Since Webster doesn’t cite any specific instances, it’s difficult to say whether Murray borrowed from A Philosophical and Practical Grammar. He may well have. His remarks in the new edition’s introduction indicate that he was comfortable incorporating other people’s material. He says, “In a work which professes itself to be a compilation, and which, from the nature and design of it must consist chiefly of materials selected from the writings of others, it is scarcely necessary to apologize for the use which the Compiler has made of his predecessors’ labours; or for omitting to insert their names.” Most of the grammar books coming off the presses during this era have a sameness of language, especially in their definitions and their syntax rules. All books including Webster’s, for instance, continue to quote Lowth’s rule against double negatives—two negatives in English destroy one another—almost verbatim.

  In any case, Webster’s attacks on Murray in A Philosophical and Practical Grammar appear not to have had much impact on the 1808 edition of Murray’s grammar. The rules that Webster specifically criticized remain unchanged. Murray continues to define a and an as indefinite articles. He still thinks joint possessives should take only a single ’s. He does enlarge his discussion of as follows, saying that grammarians disagree about whether it should always be singular and outlining competing points of view. In the end, however, he recommends that it be treated as singular. He tells readers that those in doubt may paraphrase.

  The majority of Murray’s users would never have become aware of Webster’s accusations. They wouldn’t have abandoned Murray’s grammar books even if they had. At least another decade would pass before Murray’s books began to disappear from classrooms, and they would not be replaced by Webster. Instead, the new grammar books would be very much like Murray’s. Americans remained unconvinced by Webster’s arguments in favor of basing grammatical standards on their own homegrown speech.

  * * *

  Murray’s success opened the floodgates for grammar book writers. By 1800, several Americans a year were turning out their own versions of Murray-like grammars, with around three hundred titles published in the first half of the nineteenth century.38 All of these authors were hoping to capture a slice of the vast grammar book market that Murray’s spectacular sales had revealed. Most would fail. Even so, writing a grammar book was considered a promising way for teachers and literary men to earn some extra income.

  Two of the most successful of Murray’s competitors were Goold Brown and Samuel Kirkham. Brown, a New York schoolmaster, published The Institutes of English Grammar in 1823. Brown’s preface suggests that he was fully aware of Murray as the major obstacle to his own book’s sales. He savages Murray in language that makes Webster seem measured by comparison. (Brown also indirectly attacks Webster with remarks on “some [who] have … wasted their energies on eccentric flights, vainly supposing that the learning of ages would give place to their whimsical theories.” He saves his most brutal criticisms, however, for Murray, his chief competitor.)

  Brown uses much of his preface to denigrate Murray. He sneeringly points out that Murray opened his grammar book with remarks to the effect that “little is to be expected” of a new grammar compilation, considering how many volumes were already in print. “From the very first sentence of his book,” Brown says, “it appears that he entertained but a low and most erroneous idea” of the duties of a grammarian. In Brown’s view, “Murray was an intelligent and very worthy man,…” but “in original thought and critical skill” he fell far below most of the authors he relied on for his materials. He comments austerely, “It is certain and evident that he entered upon his task with a very insufficient preparation.”39 Brown points out that Murray never actually taught children, unlike Brown himself, who had many years’ experience in the classroom.

  Furthermore, Brown says, Murray seemed to think that writing a grammar book consists solely of compiling the most useful materials and arranging them conveniently for students. “As if,” he exclaims, “to be master of his own art—to think and write well himself, were no part of a grammarian’s business!” Brown has decided to write his own book because “to expect the perfection of grammar from him who cannot treat the subject in a style at once original and pure, is absurd.”40 Brown intends to provide more than a mere compilation.

  Like most grammar book authors, Brown tries to strike a balance in his preface between assuring readers that his grammar rules are authoritative and claiming originality for his scholarship. “The nature of the subject,” he concedes, “almost entirely precludes invention.” On the other hand, “many false and faulty definitions and rules [have] been copied and copied from one grammar to another, as if authority had canonized their errors.” Brown believes he has avoided this problem through diligent research. He has “carefully perused” over fifty grammar books, and glanced over many others that, in his opinion, were not worth reading.41

  Brown also believes that his practice exercises are an improvement over what has come before. He says, “Murray evidently intended that his book of exercises should be constantly used with his grammar; but he made the examples in the former so dull and prolix, that few learners, if any, have ever gone through the series agreeably to his direction.” Brown then dissects several of Murray’s parsing examples to show where Murray has gone wrong.42

  Although Brown has mentioned earlier in the preface that he didn’t think it necessary to “encumber his pages with a useless parade of names and references, or to distinguish very minutely what is copied and what is original,” he holds Murray to a higher standard and winds up his assault with charges of plagiarism. He complains that English Grammar is not only riddled wit
h errors, but the best parts of it are really other people’s work. “There is no part of the volume more accurate,” Brown claims, “than that which he literally copied from Lowth.” Not that later grammarians have done any better, in his view. He comments, “It is curious to observe how frequently a grammatical blunder committed by Murray … has escaped the notice of … many others who have found it easier to copy him than to write for themselves.”43

  In spite of Brown’s harsh criticisms of English Grammar, The Institutes shows more than a hint of Murray’s influence. Like Murray, Brown presents his main rules and definitions in large type and his comments in smaller type. An appendix titled “Of Style” divides the basic features of style into the same three categories that are found in Murray’s “Perspicuity” chapter—purity, propriety, and precision—and defines them in almost the same words.

  Like Murray and others, Brown pays tribute to the notion that general use should determine what constitutes good grammar, but adopts the same rules that were laid down in the earliest eighteenth-century grammar texts. He calls for nominative case after the verb be and after comparatives, as in He is taller than I. He declares that To whom did he speak? is “in general more graceful” than Whom did he speak to? He also rejects double negatives, stating flatly that they are “vulgar.” As an illustration, he presents the same line from Milton—“Nor did they not perceive their evil plight”—that Lowth quoted several decades earlier.