Microsoft Word umk 3-kurs leksikologiya kunduzgi

Word appropriation and purism

Purism is a pejorative term in linguistics for a zealous conservatism in regard to the use and development of a language. Also known as language purism, linguistic purism, and discourse purism.
A purist (or grammaticaster) is someone who expresses a desire to eliminate certain undesirable features from a language, including grammatical errors, jargon, neologisms, colloquialisms, and words of foreign origin.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language," says James Nicoll, "is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary" (quoted by Elizabeth Winkler in Understanding Language, 2015).
Examples and Observations
"Like other tabooing practices, language purism seeks to constrain the linguistic behavior of individuals by identifying certain elements in a language as 'bad.' Typically, these are words and word usage that are believed to threaten the identity of the culture in question--what 18th-century grammarians referred to as the 'genius' of the language. Authenticity has two faces: one is the struggle to arrest linguistic change and to protect it from foreign influences. But, as Deborah Cameron claims, the prescriptive endeavors of speakers are more complex and diverse than this. She prefers the expression verbal hygiene over 'prescription' or 'purism' for exactly this reason. According to Cameron, a sense of linguistic values makes verbal hygiene part of every speaker's linguistic competence, as basic to language as vowels and consonants." (Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Purism in the 16th Century
"I am of this opinion that our own tung shold be written cleane and pure, unmixt and unmangeled with borowing of other tunges, wherein if we take not heed by tiim, ever borowing and never paying, she shall be fain to keep her house as bankrupt." (John Cheke, Regius Professor of Greek at Cambridge University, in a letter to




Thomas

Hoby,

1561)

- "Sir John Cheke (1514-1557) was so determined that the English tongue should be preserved 'pure, unmixt and unmangeled . . .' that he produced a translation of the gospel of St. Matthew using only native words, forcing him to coin neologisms ('new words') such as mooned 'lunatic,' hundreder 'centurion,' and crossed 'crucified.' This policy recalls an Old English practice in which Latin words like discipulus were rendered using native formations like leorningcniht, or 'learning follower,' rather than by borrowing the Latin word, as Modern English does with disciple." (Simon Horobin, How English Became English. Oxford University Press, 2016)

Purism in the 19th Century
"A certain Captain Hamilton in 1833 demonstrates the invective the British directed at the language used in America. He claims that his denunciation is 'the natural feeling of an Englishman at finding the language of Shakespeare and Milton thus gratuitously degraded. Unless the present progress of change be arrested by an increase of taste and judgment in the more educated classes, there can be no doubt that, in another century, the dialect of the Americans will become utterly unintelligible to an English man . . ..' Hamilton's vituperation exemplifies a purist view of language, which allows only one fixed, immutable, correct version [and] which sees difference and change as degradation." (Heidi Preschler, "Language and Dialect," in Encyclopedia of American Literature, ed. by Steven Serafin. Continuum, 1999)
Brander Matthews on Lost Causes in the Early 20th Century
"The purist used to insist that we should not say 'the house is being built,' but rather 'the house is building.' So far as one can judge from a survey of recent writing the purist has abandoned this combat; and nobody nowadays hesitates to ask, 'What is being done?' The purist still objects to what he calls the Retained Object in such a sentence as 'he was given a new suit of clothes.' Here again, the struggle is vain, for this usage is very old; it is well established in English; and whatever may be urged against it theoretically, it has the final advantage of convenience. The purist also tells us that we should say 'come to see me' and 'try to do it,' and not 'come and see me' and 'try and do it.' Here once more the purist is setting up a personal standard without any warrant. He may use whichever of these forms he likes best, and we on our part have the same permission, with a strong preference for the older and more idiomatic of them." (Brander Matthews,