Cover not available
Part of
Processes of Change: Studies in Late Modern and Present-Day English
Edited by Sandra Jansen and Lucia Siebers
[Studies in Language Variation 21] 2019
► pp. 159–182

Chapter 9
Attitudes to flat adverbs and English usage advice

Widespread as they are in non-standard and informal varieties of English, flat or suffixless adverbs are subject to prescriptive criticism when appearing in standard English. In the present study we repeated the survey by Mittins et al. (1970) in Attitudes to English Usage to investigate whether the acceptability of flat adverbs has changed since the late 1960s. Our findings suggest that acceptability has grown over the past fifty years, with flat adverbs losing their status of a usage problem. The analysis of the Hyper Usage Guide of English database suggests the same. Interestingly, we identified a new usage problem related to the usage of adverbs, one primarily associated with American English, the dual-pair adverb, thus/thusly.

Keywords: flat adverbs, thusly , usage problems, British English, American English, attitudes to usage, usage guides, acceptability survey, HUGE database
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The survey
  • 3.Usage of slow/slowly and quicker/more quickly, and of thusly
    • 3.1 Slow/slowly and quicker/more quickly
    • 3.2 Thusly
  • 4.Survey results
    • 4.1The respondents
    • 4.2Acceptability ratings for quicker, go slow and thusly
    • 4.3Acceptability ranking for go slow, quicker and thusly across sociolinguistic groups
  • 5.Go slow/slowly, quicker/more quickly and thusly in the usage guides
  • 6.The usage guides and the informants
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.21.09luk
References

Primary sources

The American heritage dictionary
1996, ed. by William Morris. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
The American heritage guide to contemporary usage and style
2005, ed. by Joseph P. Pickett, Steven Kleinedler & Susan Spitz. Boston, NY: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Ayto, John
2002 Good English! 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burchfield, Robert
1996 Fowler’s Modern English usage. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy
(ed.) 2007 Oxford A-Z of English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Bonnie & Craig Skates
1990 The Rinehart guide to grammar and usage. 2nd edition. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
Ebbitt, Wilma R. & David R. Ebbitt
1978  Writer’s guide and index to English. 6th edition. Glenview, Cook County, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
Evans, Bergen & Cornelia Evans
1957 A dictionary of contemporary American usage. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W.
1926 A dictionary of Modern English usage. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Garner, Bryan A.
1998 A dictionary of Modern American usage. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gowers, Sir Ernest
1965 Fowler’s Modern English usage. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Janet Whitcut
1988 The Longman guide to English usage. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Krapp, George Philip
1927 A comprehensive guide to good English. New York: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Live and Learn: A guide for all, who wish to speak and write correctly
(Anon. 1856?). New York: Dick & Fitzgerald, Publishers.Google Scholar
Mager, N. H., & S. K. Mager
1993 Prentice hall encyclopedic dictionary of English usage. 2nd edition revised by John Domini. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Morris, William & Mary Morris
1975 Harper dictionary of contemporary usage. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Margaret
1957 A dictionary of American-English usage: Based on Fowler's Modern English usage. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam
2004 The Cambridge guide to English usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pocket Fowler’s Modern English usage
1999 Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Randall, Bernice
1988 Webster’s new world guide to current American usage. New York, NY: Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael
1980 Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taggart, Caroline
2010 Her ladyship’s guide to the Queen’s English. London: National Trust.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L.
2001 Mind the gaffe. The Penguin guide to common errors in English. London/New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Vallins, G. H.
1960 Better English. 2nd edition. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Webster’s dictionary of English usage
1989 Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., Publishers.Google Scholar
Wilson, Kenneth G.
1993 The Columbia guide to Standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Frederick T.
1962 Current English usage. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
The Written Word
1977 ed. by Fernando de Mello Vianna, Anne D. Steinhardt & Carole La Mond. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar

Secondary sources

Beal, Joan
2009 Three hundred years of prescriptivism (and counting). In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade & W. Van der Wurff (eds.), Current issues in Late Modern English, 35–56. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan
1989 Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9 (1). 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999 Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate
2010 Linguistic cleanliness is next to godliness: Taboo and purism.” English Today 26 (2). 3–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burchfield, Robert
1991 The Fowler brothers and the tradition of usage handbooks.” In Gerhard Leitner (ed.), English traditional grammars: An international perspective, 93–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David
2006 Into the twenty-first century.” In Lynda Mugglestone (ed.), The Oxford history of English, 394–413. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne
2014 Fixing English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2008 The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. [URL].Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward
1971 Linguistics, lexicography, and attitudes toward usage during the last decade. Pacific Coast Philology 6. 20–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedges, Marilyn
2011  Telling it like it is. An assessment of attitudes to language change based on the use of like. MA thesis: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond
2005 Dublin English: Evolution and change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum
2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughes, Arthur & Peter Trudgill
1979 English accents and dialects. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Lange, Cynthia
2012 Thusly is not a word? Bridging the Unbridgeable (blog) 21 March 2012 ([URL]).Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2002 Recent grammatical change in English: Data, description, theory.” In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), Language and computers, advances in corpus linguistics, 61–68. Amsterdam etc.: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lukač, Morana
2015 Linguistic prescriptivism in letters to the editor. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (3). 1–13.Google Scholar
2018 What is the difference between thus and thusly? e-Rea: Revue électronique d’études sur le monde anglophone . [URL].Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Grassroots Prescriptivism. English Today 34 (4).
Mair, Christian
2006 Twentieth-century English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy
[1985] 2012 Authority in language. Investigating Standard English. 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mittins, W. H., Mary Salu, Mary Edminson & Sheila Coyne
1970 Attitudes to English usage [repr. 1975]. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg
2003 Historical Sociolinguistics. London etc.: Longman.Google Scholar
ODNB: The Oxford dictionary of national biography
Online edition, [URL].
OED Online: The Oxford English dictionary
Online edition, [URL].
Opdahl, Lisa
2000 LY or zero suffix? A study in variation of dual-form adverbs in present-day English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam
2015 Dual adverbs in Australian English. In Peter Collins (ed.), Grammatical change in English worldwide, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K.
2004 Ideology, power and linguistic theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MLA in Philadelphia, PA. [URL].Google Scholar
Straaijer, Robin
2014 Hyper usage guide of English database. [URL].Google Scholar
2018 The usage guide: Evolution of a genre. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), English usage guides: History, advice, attitudes, 11–29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid
2006 James Merrick (1720–1769): Poet, scholar, linguist. Historiographia Linguistica 38 (1/2). 39–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Studying attitudes to English usage. English Today 29 (4). 3–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Flat adverbs: Acceptable today? English Today 31 (3). 9−10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. In progress. Describing prescriptivism. Weiner, Edmund
1988 On editing a usage guide. In E. G. Stanley & T. F. Hoad(eds.), Words. For Robert Burchfield’s sixty-fifth birthday, 171–183. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

COLLINS, PETER
2022. Hypercorrection in English: an intervarietal corpus-based study. English Language and Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid
2021. Of greengrocers, sports commentators, estate agents and television presenters: who’s in a usage guide and why. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42:9 ► pp. 783 ff. DOI logo
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria
2022. Methodological approaches to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism. Studia Neophilologica 94:3 ► pp. 334 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.