malapropisms and spoonerisms and solecisms and marowsky

Does anyone really know how to speak properly? Is there such a thing as proper speech? Contemporary linguists are more interested in what is called descriptive than in presecriptive linguistics. This means they describe how speech is used rather than speak about the correctness of speech. Yet most of us were brought up thinking that there is not simply a better way of saying/writing an idea than another, but also a right way to do it. Those who took Latin in earlier days (a very small number in this country now) know that there was a concept of Latinity, invented by the ancients, to express the idea of correct Latin usage. Cicero or Virgil, for example, were prime examples of Latinity. But the concept of correct use of language goes back to the Greeks, who invented one of the terms listed above: solecism. Let's start there.

Solecism

The word solecism is derived from the ancient city of Soli in Asia Minor. Beginning in the 6th century B. C., the Greeks colonized this area, as well as other areas, of the Mediterannean world. But language changes when it both interacts with the local speech and when it is separated from the usage "back home." When Greeks would travel to Soli they discovered their compatriots beginning to speak Greek that was not as "pure" as Athenian (Attic) Greek. And so they coined the term soloikismos to describe the "mistaken Greek" of their brethren. Leave it to Aristotle to make a distinction between solecism and barbarism, which has even been taken over into English as a distinction between misuse of grammar and misuse of phonology. Since most Americans don't know the distinction between grammar and phonology, the difference is lost on them, and perhaps we shouldn't have both solecism and barbarism. Oh, by the way, an example of solecism would be: "She went with her sister and I to the party." People use "I" when the objective case is called for in order not to appear to be self-centered. An example of barbarism, in contrast, is when someone would say: "I misunderestimated my opponent."

But the concept of solecism suggests that there is a form of correct speech. Though the Rev. Jeremy Taylor could rail against poor speaking in the 17th century: "Solecisms, impure words, and..rude expressions," a 17th century author (Dryden) could also sagely observe: "Let any man...read diligently the works of Shakespeare and Fletcher, and I dare undertake, that he will find in every page either some solecism of speech...or some notorious flaw in sense." It may be that "right speech" like "correct spelling" is just something that you do if you want to get a higher-paying job. People who are upwardly mobile can't say "Coulda"--it has to be "could have." Even if I were a linguistic relativist, however, I find myself wanting to know the "right way" to say something in Italian, or German, or Spanish. Thus, the word solecism continues to have its utility, even though we are not quite sure if we can agree on what contitutes "good" English.

Malapropisms

But, we know that when language is used in a slightly "wrong" sense it can become hilarious. Two examples of this kind of (usually unintentional) hilarity are malapropisms and spoonerisms. Some are so funny, however, that it makes you want to sit down and make up some more of them--which seemingly violates the basic definition of the idea. I have written extensively on malapropisms here. Suffice it to say that they are humorous substitutions of improper words that sound like the proper word for the right word. The classic example used by Mrs. Malaprop in 1775 is: "he has reached the pineapple of success." Here are two additional malapropisms that I didn't mention in my earlier essays. One that is difficult to understand, because of its technical meaning, is from 1887: "The expression 'on suffrage,' a delightful malaprop for 'on sufferance'" ("On sufferance" means by virtue of tacit assent but without express permission, such as in this 1864 quotation: "I will not accept my liberty on sufferance." Since suffrage, the right to vote, has a connection to liberty, we could see the humor of "I will not accept my liberty on suffrage.") Let me give you one more because of the obscurity of the preceding one. "He is a man of great statue." An interesting double-entendre.

Well, let's move to something far less obscure, and far more funny. President George W. Bush said: "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile." Actually, that is precisely what they do. Thank the President for this malapropism.

Spoonerisms

Named after the Rev. William Spooner (born in 1844), a spoonerism is a transposition of syllables or words in a sentence to yield a completely different meaning. Whereas a malapropism is a substitution of a similarly sounding word for the correct one, a spoonerism is a transposition of words in the sentence, usually exciting risibilities. The most widely-recognized spoonerism is "It is kisstomary to cuss the bride." But the word spoonerism had to fight with another one, which it bested, in order to reign supreme in the world of transposed syllables and words. Going back to the mid 1860s was the term Marouski or Marowsky or Marrowsky (I love it when there are spelling variations) to mean: "a variety of slang, or a slip in speaking, characterized by the transposition of initial syllables of two (consecutive) words." The earliest attestation of Marousky is in 1863: "Fanny King, or as Bill Leach, in the interesting language called Marousky, termed her, "Kanny Fing." Then, just to take all the fun out of learning, we have this 1998 quotation: "Both metathesis and metaplasm seem to be restricted to changes within a single world, rather than to transpositions between two words, which is what spoonerism more commonly means..Marrowsky is an earlier alternative."

Well, the first attestation of the word spoonerism was only in 1900, and it has come on with a fury in the past generation, forcing marrowsky into the dung heap of history. Even Nabokov, who used almost every good English word, made use of it in 1975: "Only a lunatic would have chosen a pair of third-rate publcists to write about--spoonerizing their names in addition!"

Let's conclude this essay by giving a few other examples. A multitude of online cites give you more. A "Spooneristic" reading of Psalm 23:1 could be as follows: "The sword is my leopard; I will not shont." We also have "The Lord is a shoving leopard." Or, "I spent the autumn afternoon lurning beaves." Or, "I like to eat belly jeans." Or, in nonsense words: "I arose at the drack of cawn." The possibilities are nearly endless, but it is good to know the word spoonerism.

[Next]

1886