Welcome to the second installment of my new series, in which I review the book “Says Who?” by Anne Curzan.

Double Negative

The author discusses the linguistic and social stigmas associated with the double negative.

The linguistic stigma stems from two “nonsensical” myths: (a) the double negative isn’t part of the English language and (b) two negatives cancel each other out.

Curzan explains that the double negative was standard in Old English, Middle English, and Renaissance English. Many esteemed classical writers used not two but three or more negatives in the same sentence. Of course, there were several varieties of English coexisting—just as they do today. It just so happened that the single negative variety ended up being the one used by printing offices in the 1700s. Thus, the single negative became standard, while the double negative was relegated to a nonstandard construct. I’ll gloss over the linguistic conundrum of explaining how Curzan tackled the myth that two negatives (always) cancel each other out. She pinpoints this myth to Bishop Robert Lowth and his student, Lindley Murray. Their most notable works, "A Short Introduction to English Grammar” (1762) and “English Grammar” (1795), respectively, were highly influential in educating generations of academics.

The social stigma comes from its association with African American English. Curzan’s point is that all varieties of English spoken in speech communities have systematic grammar. Therefore, multiple negative is as systematic as single negative. In addition, the multiple negative variety isn’t an improper form that branched off from the standard language, but it’s a distinct variety in its own right. I simplified this a lot.

Politically Correct

The author claims that the controversy surrounding inclusive language has nothing to do with words. Rather, it’s a power struggle about who gets to define inclusive language. It’s a battle between the “majority”—as the author put it, the ones with the biggest microphone—and those marginalized groups that have always been underrepresented in society. The former accuses the latter of politicizing the language. However, the author pushes back, explaining that language has never been neutral because we’re always making conscious choices about what language to use. The difference now is that these marginalized groups “have gotten a bigger, more powerful microphone” and are finally making their voices heard. I really liked this analogy. Curzan concludes that inclusive language isn’t about what you say or write (regardless of how well-meaning your intentions are), but about what others see or hear.

I’ll discuss the adjective ‘fun’ in the next post. Thanks for reading!