This paper explores popular perceptions of language, in particular linguistic prescription. It focuses not on formal acts of censorship such as might be carried out by a language academy, but on the attitudes and activities of ordinary people in, say, letters to newspapers or comments on radio. In these contexts, language users act as self-appointed censors and take it upon themselves to condemn those words and constructions that they feel do not measure up to the standards they perceive should hold sway.

People's concerns about language and the kind of linguistic censorship and puristic activities that accompany them belong to our tabooing behaviour generally. Prescriptive practices are part of the human struggle to control unruly nature – in this case, to define language and to force the reality of ‘the boundless chaos of a living speech’ (as Samuel Johnson put it in his Preface) into neat classificatory systems. As with tabooing practices generally, linguistic purists see a very clear distinction between what is clean and what is dirty – in this case, what is desirable and undesirable in a language. Linguists who challenge these prescriptions are challenging their ‘cherished classifications’. Small wonder there is often such a schism between linguistics and the wider community.

Although Chinese Americans set up Chinese heritage language schools as early as 1848 to preserve the heritage language and to promote a sense of ethnic identity among their American-born children (Chao, 1997), there is strong evidence that language shift to English is taking place rather rapidly within the Chinese communities across the U.S. Data from the 2006 ACS show that while only 34.1 percent of first generation (i.e. foreign-born) Chinese Americans reported speaking ‘English very well’, the percentages rise dramatically for those who are American-born (i.e. second generation and beyond) or born overseas but arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 (i.e. the 1.5 generation). 70.4 percent of the 1.5 generation and 93.8 percent of the American-born Chinese Americans reported speaking ‘English very well’. Additionally, only about 27.6 percent of the ABCs were estimated to speak their heritage language at home. Taken together, these estimates suggest that the rate of shift from Chinese to English is accelerating. Jia (2008) finds that even for first generation Chinese Americans, their Chinese language skills continue to decline with increasing English immersion. Rapid language shift to English means that many ABCs speak English as one of their native languages, if not the only one. This raises interesting sociolinguistic questions concerning the characteristics of the English spoken by ABCs and how ABCs utilize varieties of English to construct and negotiate differences with respect to each other and vis-à-vis the larger social structure.

Whenever I've given a lecture on the future of English, the question I am most frequently asked is ‘Will Chinese take over from English as the global language?’. With China's economy continuing to grow fast, whilst those of the west slow down in recession, China has been rising up the world economic rankings and has overtaken other economies faster than predicted. It seems no time since it overhauled the UK economy to become the world's number 4 (2005), and then Germany (2007) to become number 3. During the summer of 2010 it edged past Japan to become the world's second largest economy. It may take another 20 years to overtake the US economy in absolute size, though it may already have become the world's largest exporter (overtaking Germany), and has already overtaken the US in energy consumption. Next year, China is expected to take over from the US as the world's largest manufacturer – a position the US has held since it overtook the UK in the late 1890s.

A case study of the presence of English in shop and service names in Post-Soviet Uzbekistan. The use of English as a trademark of modernity and elitism in the commercial contexts in Uzbekistan is a new phenomenon which has emerged as Uzbekistan entered the global village as an independent and developing country in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. While during the Cold War (1947–1991) and the Soviet era by and large, English was considered ‘the language of Western imperialism’ (Dushku, 1998), today it is seen as a symbol of advanced education, modernity, prestige, and elitism. In order to have a better understanding of how common and widespread English is on the streets and commercial contexts of Uzbekistan, this study examines the use of written English in shop signs and different service names.

Uzbekistan, the most populous Central Asian country, shares its borders with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan.

During the Soviet era, language teaching methodology in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was premised on promoting a deep knowledge of a language's grammar and vocabulary. To this end, the selection of texts was centrally mandated, and teaching techniques and activities were carefully controlled and monitored. This rigorous approach to language teaching had both benefits and drawbacks for teachers and students. In response to the drawbacks of traditional Soviet methodology, some teachers and teacher trainers in former Soviet republics are currently promoting communicative language teaching, also known as the communicative approach. Communicative language teaching, as opposed to more traditional Soviet teaching methodology, emphasizes learning to use language to communicate rather than learning language solely as a linguistic system. However, the implementation of communicative language teaching has been problematic, for reasons ranging from government policies to teachers' beliefs and training to students' expectations. The purpose of this article is twofold. We first describe important characteristics of traditional Soviet language teaching methodology and the consequences of that methodology for language learning. Then, we explore the challenges of transforming traditional language teaching methodology (for the teaching of English as a foreign language, in particular) in post-Soviet republics, using Azerbaijan as a specific example.

The most proscriptive eighteenth-century grammar of English, according to Sundby et al. (1991), is Knowles's Principles of English Grammar (1796). With 722 comments in which grammatical mistakes are criticised, Knowles heads the list which Sundby et al. compiled for their Dictionary of Normative Grammar. The copy of Knowles's grammar which Sundby et al. analysed was the fourth edition; the grammar had first come out in 1785 in Liverpool, and it enjoyed a moderate popularity (Alston, 1965:78–9). The fourth edition of Knowles's grammar consists of 144 pages, which makes it considerably longer than the first edition (36 pp.) (Alston, 1965:79). Fifteen pages of the book are devoted to a section called ‘Of Verbal Criticism’. This section includes according to Sundby et al. (1991:8) ‘some 460 “improper” sentences [which] are presented in alphabetical order …, the “proper” form of (the relevant part of) each sentence being given on the right’. In addition, the book contains an appendix with ‘Exercises of False Construction’, which are included to ‘afford the schoolboys and teachers for whom the grammar was intended ample opportunity for testing their linguistic ability, improved (it may be supposed) by diligent study of the first two lists’.

The concept of immigrant generation is complex. Americans use the ordinal designations first-, second-, third-, even ‘1.5’-generation to refer to individuals' varying relationship to their family's moment of immigration. But these terms are much more fluid in practice than the rigidity of the numbers implies, and the nature of that fluidity is changing over time. Furthermore, different waves of immigration mean different experiences of generation identity; a first-generation immigrant in the 1880s entered an American community that was drastically different than the one a first-generation immigrant enters today.

One example of these shifts in the meaning of immigrant generation is among Asian Americans across the country, particularly those in California. In this paper, we discuss the relationship between language and immigrant generation with respect to Chinese Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area of Northern California, the region of the United States with the longest history of Chinese immigration and settlement. We focus in particular on the pronunciation of English, drawing on data collected in the Bay Area from 2008–2009 to argue that Chinese cultural and linguistic practices are gaining currency in the wider community. Our discussion looks at the experiences of third and higher immigrant generations, especially as they interact with more recent waves of immigrants, and the resulting dominance of Chinese and other Asian identities across the Bay Area. The layered and rapidly shifting Chinese American experience suggests potential future directions for the study of other immigrant communities in the United States.

The use of English loanwords in different languages has been discussed from various perspectives by several scholars (e.g. Takashi, 1990; Kay, 1995; Takashi Wilkerson, 1997; Smead, 1998; Friedrich, 2002). Although this phenomenon has been regarded as enriching and/or creative by some (e.g. Crystal, 2003; Friedrich, 2002), it has encountered opposition in many parts of the world. Phillipson (1992: 7), for instance, views it ‘as a phenomenon that has offended users of other languages for more than a century.’ He explains how some governments (in France and Slovenia, for example) have adopted measures to prevent the use of loanwords from English. This issue of whether or not the incorporation of loanwords is offensive to the borrowing language became a topic of much debate in Brazil after Projected Law #1676/1999, which aims to limit the use of foreign words (mainly from English) in Brazilian Portuguese (hereafter, BP). As Rajagopalan (2005) explains, many popular movements, politicians, and traditional grammarians have expressed concern that BP is ‘under an imminent threat from English’ (101).

Several linguists (e.g. Faraco, 2001) have opposed the proposition, based on issues such as linguistic prejudice and the lack of language expertise of the proponents and supporters of the projected law. Still, the proposition was approved by the Brazilian Senate in 2003. It now awaits further approval by the Chamber of Deputies before a final decision is made. One possible way of investigating whether loanwords are offensive to BP is to approach it from a linguistic perspective. Hence, in the present study, I explore the issue of borrowing by BP speakers through a linguistic analysis of loanwords from English that are currently used as slang in Brazil. The definition of slang used here is that proposed by Eble (1996: 11): ‘an ever changing set of colloquial words and phrases that speakers use to establish or reinforce social identity or cohesiveness within a group or with a trend or fashion in society at large.’

For many centuries, the United States has opened its doors to a variety of immigrants throughout the globe, engendering situations that Fishman (2004: 406) characterizes as ‘pluralistic societal impact.’ Upon coming to America, twentieth century immigrants found themselves immersed in a context in which not only their cultures clashed with that of the U.S., but also their mother tongues interacted with American English. The language patterns resulting from such interactions between immigrants' native languages and American English has been of great interest to the linguistic research community for the past several decades. For instance, research in the field of language contact has been particularly marked by the influential work undertaken by Thomason and Kaufman (1988) in which they developed a model to predict the nature of these contact-induced changes and to examine the mechanism by which these changes emerge.

There is a pervasive view, held by academics and educated laypeople alike, that the Oxford English Dictionary is a descriptive work. When plans for this great dictionary were first taking shape, the originators made their intentions very clear. Archbishop Trench, delivering the two lectures to the London Philological Society in 1857 which initiated the project, famously stated the axiom that the lexicographer ‘is a historian of [the language], not a critic’, while the Philological Society's Dictionary Committee announced to its members in a document of 1860 that their job was to list and describe words accurately and disinterestedly.

Most popular discussions of varieties of English in Appalachia (USA) focus only on vernacular dialect features, suggesting that these hallmark characteristics are common for ‘true’ mountain folk (Dial, 1972). Naturally, the reality of the dialects in this region is more complex and subdued than the stereotype. While traditional features, such as a-prefixing (e.g. she is a-working), have played a role in the region, most stereotypical, Appalachian dialect features are fading from usage today (Hazen, 2006). Appalachia is a long region divided into numerous sections. Depending on the sources consulted, the regional divisions are quite staggering in their differences. For some, the region of Appalachia can stretch as far north as New York and as far south as Mississippi, including parts of 13 states (Appalachian Regional Commission). Other definitions limit the geography to a much smaller range (Wolfram & Christian, 1976). Aware of this problem, we have chosen to focus on one region universally accepted as part of Appalachia: West Virginia. Geographically, the state fits entirely within the boundaries of all definitions of the region. Likewise, West Virginia also fits the socio-economic profile most commonly associated with Appalachia. To provide the most comprehensive picture possible, we present a brief overview of English in West Virginia, followed by an empirical examination of 10 dialect features. The import of this empirical investigation is that the West Virginia vernacular of the twenty-first century has changed from its roots at the beginning of the twentieth century.

A proposal for Federal status for English as a Swiss language. I have written previously on the role of English as a vehicular language in plurilingual Switzerland (ET42, April 1995) and more recently on the cachet of English in the Swiss media (ET95, September 2008). Switzerland sits at the heart of Europe, not as a member of the European Union but with continually negotiated bi-lateral arrangements and now relatively open borders. As elsewhere in Europe English is widely used in academia, administration and the big corporations, but there is a surprising suggestion from the Swiss scientific community that English should now be given formal recognition as a Swiss language.

On keeping versus ‘correcting’ Dutch flavour in English texts. As early as 1992, Cox and Furlong indicated that some already considered English a national language in the Netherlands given how widely it was understood. Likewise, McArthur announced at a 1993 conference in Amsterdam, ‘English is now simply one of your languages, along with Dutch and Frisian.’ Against this backdrop and the increasing momentum of notions of World Englishes, it is no longer far-fetched to consider seriously the proposition of Dutch English emerging as a legitimate variety of the world's lingua franca. That such varieties have emerged in ESL or ‘outer circle’ countries such as India, Nigeria and Singapore is now well established. More controversial is the idea that so, too, could they emerge from traditionally EFL countries once relegated to Kachru's (1982) ‘norm-dependent’ expanding circle (such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia), which are now seen as transitioning – or indeed having already transitioned – to the ‘norm-developing’ realm of ESL.

The Elements of Style (henceforth, Elements) is a slender book of advice on usage and writing, revised by the admired novelist and essayist E. B. White from a book by his former English professor. White did well to accept Macmillan's suggestion that he should revise and expand his former professor's book for commercial republication: successive editions of the revision sold over ten million copies. Many college-educated Americans revere Elements, swear by it, carry it around with them. It was reissued in in April 2009 to a chorus of approval from famous American literary figures. One fan has published a whole book about its history (Garvey, 2009).

The title of Elements suggests a focus on style, but in fact much of it concerns grammar. The final chapter, ‘An Approach to Style’, opens by characterizing the earlier parts of the book as ‘concerned with what is correct, or acceptable, in the use of English’, and not with ‘style in its broader meaning’; and indeed, Elements is frequently cited as an authority on questions of grammar.

I believe the success of Elements to be one of the worst things to have happened to English language education in America in the past century. The book's style advice, largely vapid and obvious (‘Do not overwrite’; ‘Be clear’), may do little damage; but the numerous statements about grammatical correctness are actually harmful. They are riddled with inaccuracies, uninformed by evidence, and marred by bungled analysis. Elements is a dogmatic bookful of bad usage advice, and the people who rely on it have no idea how badly off-beam its grammatical claims are. In this essay I provide some illustrations, and a review of some of the book's most striking faults.

Prescriptive analyses of English grammar no doubt post-date the introduction of the printing press to England in 1476, but not by much. As soon as the dissemination of standards for written English became practicable, self-appointed experts working in every area from religion (Bishop Robert Lowth, for example) to science (including Joseph Priestley, the discoverer of oxygen) published their personal recommendations for improving the English language, and the tradition has flourished ever since, even after the advent of linguistics and descriptivism. Best sellers like TV newsman Edwin Newman's Strictly Speaking (1974) and A Civil Tongue (1975), along with film and Broadway critic John Simon's Paradigms Lost (1980), have been followed by an array of more recent prescriptive mass-market guides for the grammatically unwashed, perhaps most entertaining among them, Lynne Truss's popular Eats, Shoots & Leaves (2003), but also Dennis Baron's Guide to Home Language Repair (1994), Patricia O'Conner's Woe Is I (2003), Bill Walsh's Lapsing into a Comma (2000) and The Elephants of Style (2004), and June Casagrande's Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies (2006) and its encore Mortal Syntax (2008).

Arab Americans comprise one of the fastest growing immigrant groups in the United States. Like many of the other groups discussed in the articles in this issue, we know almost nothing about the linguistic practices of Arab Americans. This paper discusses one aspect of language use among U.S.-born and immigrant Arab American youth living in Dearborn, Michigan. I show how the participants in this study use a vowel that is part of the Northern Cities Shift (NCS), a widespread regional sound change in the United States. This study and others like it have repeatedly shown that fine-grained differences in the pronunciation of vowels are a rich resource for the expression of social identities and distinctions (Eckert, 2000; Hay and Drager, 2007; Dodsworth, 2008). Until recently, most studies investigating regional sound changes had not considered the social patterning of these variables among minority speakers. This lack of attention may stem from longstanding views that use of these variables is limited to white speakers (Labov, 2001). This study shows that Arab Americans in Dearborn are making use of NCS variables to express social differences that are not related to mainstream white majority speakers but based on local social information and categories. In the remainder of this paper I describe the community and research site, then present and discuss the results of my statistical analysis.