Fowler3

More fair than Fowler?

A review of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage: Third Edition, edited by R W Burchfield (Oxford, 1996, $35.00 hardcover)

IN 1926 the first edition of Fowler’s A Dictionary of Modern English Usage broke new ground. Despite its title, MEU was not a dictionary in the conventional sense. It was a mildly eccentric yet scholarly account of the then current state of the language, aimed at those multitudinous points of detail and confusion that can puzzle even the well educated. It was intended as an aid to both correctness and clarity, and its successors and emulators (from The Complete Plain Words to The Cambridge Australian English Style Guide) have shared that purpose while often adopting a very different approach.

The primary market for such books is, surely, practising writers (whether professional writers or professionals who write). Their need is for advice or clarification when their own linguistic knowledge is stretched to its limits. Secondary markets include lovers of the language, who enjoy exploring some of its quirks and quiddities, and academic linguists, who need to keep in touch with current research into language trends. As an academic linguist, I find Burchfield’s revision valuable; as a lover of the language, I find it rewarding; as a practising writer, I find it limited. Burchfield seems to have aimed at the secondary rather than the primary market.

Practising writers need three kinds of language reference aids. They need a reliable dictionary, to help them with questions of meaning; they need a ‘house style guide’ (even if it is, by default, AGPS or Chicago), to help them with editorial issues; and they need a usage guide, to help them with stylistics — issues of choice and discretion. A guide to usage, if it is not merely to duplicate the function of a dictionary, should advise the reader on issues such as connotations, and should even venture into the realm of aesthetics. Sadly for the practising writer, Burchfield avoids aesthetics and rarely offers clear advice. He delights in accounting for variations, deviations, and changes in widely accepted standards, but all too often his explanations stop short of drawing conclusions or making recommendations. Sometimes this is mildly frustrating; at other times it is decidedly annoying.

Let me illustrate by means of his entry on century. His treatment of the conventional usage (which defines the 20th century as from 1/1/1901 to 31/12/2000) is a little confusing, but accurate. However, he then goes on to say that ‘Despite the above reckoning, in modern usage 1 January 1800 is often counted as being the first day of the 19c,… and so on.’ By failing to pronounce judgment on this common lapse of arithmetic, Burchfield is merely confusing shifts in meaning with errors in fact.

That said, I must acknowledge a strength of the book — albeit a strength that is of limited value to writers: Burchfield does give guidance on pronunciation. He fails to take notice of the widespread mispronunciation of h as haitch, but is commendably clear on differences between British and US norms.

Back on the other side of the ledger, despite dust-jacket blurb suggesting otherwise, Burchfield mentions Australian English very rarely, from either written or spoken perspectives. Writers practising their craft in Australia should buy Burchfield for interest and stimulation, by all means; but they would be better advised to buy Peters[1] for practical guidance.

[1] P H Peters (1996): The Cambridge Australian English Style Guide, CUP.