Usage Guides Research Articles

Attitudes towards dictionary use: A case study of university students studying languages for business

AbstractDue to the spread of the communicative language teaching method language learners were often encouraged not to use a dictionary but rather infer the meaning of a word or phrase from its context. Proper dictionary use, however, is now seen as an important element of autonomous and life-long language learning. The present research used the quantitative research paradigm and a self-prepared questionnaire (n = 925) to investigate attitudes towards dictionary use in the case of university students studying languages for business. The study investigated participants' willingness to use and pay for dictionaries and their willingness to read usage guides in dictionaries. Our results show that participants typically use a dictionary if they do not know the meaning of a word or phrase, but are reluctant to buy a dictionary and are likewise unwilling to read the information guides in dictionaries. Our results also reveal that willingness to pay for dictionaries is positively influenced by willingness to use dictionaries, willingness to read usage guides in dictionaries and language learners' age.

Determining Levels of Prescriptivism in American English Usage Guides

Purpose: Prescriptivism–a concept concerned with “correctness in language use” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2019, p. 8)–serves an important purpose when editors and other language professionals apply the findings from empirical linguistic studies to practical communication tasks (Oaks, 2021). Usage guides catalog usage rules, but they treat these rules with varying levels of prescriptivism. Therefore, advice varies across usage guides. This study empirically investigates levels of prescriptivism observed in usage guides. Method: Using a scale from 1 (minimally prescriptive) to 4 (maximally prescriptive), two raters coded the level of prescriptivism observed in entries for eight well-known usage problems (e.g., who/whom and lay/lie) from 11 current usage guides relating to American English. Based on the codes assigned to these entries, an overall prescriptivism index was calculated for each usage problem and usage guide. Results: A range in levels of prescriptivism was observed. Overall, the treatment of usage problems skewed high on the prescriptivism scale with six of the eight being treated as maximally prescriptive by at least two usage guides and six having mean indexes at or above the scale’s midpoint of 2.50. Similarly, seven of the 11 usage guides gave maximally prescriptive advice for at least one usage problem and eight had mean indexes at or above 2.50. While these findings indicate a bias toward prescriptive advice, a noteworthy amount of prescription-breaking advice was also observed. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that usage guides vary considerably in their levels of prescriptivism; therefore, writers and editors must critically consider which advice to follow.

Developing a standard in lower-class Scottish writing: pauper petitions as a source for nineteenth-century lower-class Scottish language

Abstract The anglicisation of Scottish writing, a development in which the features of the previously high-status Scots language variety became marginalised and proscribed in favour of prestige Standard English variants, is typically dated by scholars to the sixteenth through eighteenth century. The effect of anglicisation on upper- and middle-class Scottish authors’ written language has been attested in numerous studies; however, how the metalinguistic ideologies of the time affected the language of the Scottish lower classes has long remained underinvestigated. This study makes use of the recent publication of a corpus of lower-class Scottish writing from the nineteenth century – the Corpus of Scottish Pauper Petitions – to investigate the effect of prescriptivism on lower-class Scottish writing as documented in nineteenth-century pauper petitions. The materials are placed side-by-side with the writings of upper- and middle-class Scottish people during this period, taken from the Corpus of Modern Scottish Writing. This study, which investigates both overt and covert Scotticisms by drawing respectively on usage guides by contemporaneous prescriptivists and works by modern linguists, takes a ‘from below’ approach to Scotland’s linguistic history and represents a new step in our understanding of the development of historical Scottish writing.

The Interrelationship between EFL Learning Motivation and Dictionary Use

Abstract Using dictionaries has been seen as an important aspect of L2 learning at all levels of L2 proficiency. Yet, in many cases dictionary use seems a considerably neglected part of L2 teaching. There is no doubt, however, that L2 learners should be encouraged to use dictionaries independently and autonomously, as they will be unable to rely on language teachers or other proficient L2 speakers to assist them throughout their whole lives. Using Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) framework, this quantitative study (N=925) investigates the interrelationship between L2 learning motivation, willingness to pay for dictionaries, reading dictionaries’ usage guides and willingness to use dictionaries. The accumulated data were analysed through structural equation modelling (SEM). Even though not necessarily generalisable to other contexts, the results show that EFL learning motivation has an impact on willingness to buy dictionaries and willingness to use dictionaries. Our data reveal that in the L2MSS, two components (motivated language learning behaviour and the ideal L2 self) have an impact on attitudes to dictionary use.

Non-Institutional and Grassroots Prescriptivism for Slovenian

The current SP 2001 with supplementary infrastructure (Fran portal, Jezikovna Svetovalnica) has the highest normative authority for the Slovenian speech community. Still, non-institutional usage guides have been appearing in Slovenia, addressing the issues of complicated rules and protracted searches. Since they do help speakers of Slovene resolve some usage problems, two forms of prescriptivism for Slovenian were surveyed: non-institutional prescriptivism and grassroots prescriptivism. Non-institutional prescriptivism is an anglophone invention appearing mostly in book form and is typically based on an author’s sense of style. Grassroots prescriptivism is a relatively novel phenomenon which consists of internet users interacting to solve one another’s usage problems without necessarily being language professionals. For Slovene, it was discovered that several books were published that resemble usage guides. Three have been researched and it was discovered that Pravipis by Aleksandra Kocmut most closely resembles a prototypical usage guide. Interestingly, the authors all cede normative authority to SP 2001, an institutional guide. Most of grassroots prescriptivism is carried out in specific Facebook groups in which their members rapidly respond to posted usage problems. Among other things, it was discovered that grassroots prescriptivism responds to usage problems more quickly while institutional guidace does so in a more reliable and informed manner.

Dat als

Dutch style guides and teaching methods consider the direct sequence of the subordinating conjunctions dat ‘that’ and als ‘if’ a stylistic lapse. It is advised to rewrite sentences containing the sequence by repositioning the conditional als-clause to the final position of the sentence. This study aims to find out to what extent this stylistic lapse actually occurs in several types of texts, and in which situations the aforementioned advice is suitable. We use corpus data from different modes and registers, we provide an overview of language advice from grammars, style guides and teaching methods, and we provide a comparison of Dutch dat als to the treatment of that if in English usage guides. Finally, we analyze the effects of the proposed reformulations, focusing on the function of the conditional clause in context. By doing so, we aim to formulate an informed view on the wide-spread advice concerning dat als ‘that if’, and we aim to refine the advice available in the literature.

The Categorization Heuristic

The Categorization Heuristic

Methodological approaches to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism

ABSTRACT The eighteenth century is widely taken as marking the beginning of a new era in the history of the English language, and one of the reasons for this relates to the process of standardisation. Understood as an ideology or ‘a set of abstract norms to which actual usage may conform to a greater or lesser extent’ (Milroy & Milroy 2012: 19), standardisation is core in the domain of normative linguistics, a field which has been concerned largely with codification and prescription, the last two stages of ‘the implementation of the standard’ as postulated by Milroy & Milroy (2012: 22–23). Codification is closely associated with the eighteenth century, and prescription naturally follows more intensely, though it is argued that it never comes to an end (Tieken 2008a: 10). Prescriptivism is yet a further stage in the pathway towards standardisation which develops ‘in full earnest’ in the nineteenth century (Tieken 2020a: 12), and not only are we entrenched in it but it is ‘resurgent’ as a ‘new prescriptivism’ (Beal 2009: 47). Where the rules that define standard and non-standard come from, what the nature of the prescriptions and proscriptions really is, and who codified the language, are all topics that have been addressed with a new focus since the early 1990s, both theoretically and methodologically. This article is concerned with the latter. It surveys the rich diversity of methodological approaches, old and new, to the study of codification, prescription, and prescriptivism in English. These methods are presented as seven thematic strands, and each strand will address the three main normative sources in this field of study: grammars, pronouncing dictionaries, and usage guides. It will be shown how new approaches have emerged over time, widening the scope of materials examined both in quantity and quality, and how the study of the normative tradition has greatly benefited from recent advances in corpus linguistics and the digital humanities, parallel to developments in other areas of linguistics.

Restoring Sanity Into Punctuation of References

What punctuation would you use in mentioning a company and its location (as in Microsoft, Redmond, WA) in running text? Isn’t it most common and natural to use commas? And yet, when it comes to giving the publisher and the place of publication of a book as part of a reference, many journals, including Science Editor, require you to use a colon, as in New York: Harper & Row or London: Penguin Books. The most common function of a colon is “to indicate a step forward from the first to the second—as when the second part explains the first part or provides an example”1 or, to put it more simply, to signal that what follows a colon is an elaboration, a definition, an explanation, or an example(s) of the text that precedes the colon, as in “This brings us to possibly the most significant development of 2020: The prominence of science, and scientific publishing, in the minds of the general public.” In the examples given above, Harper & Row or Penguin Books is none of these things in relation to New York or London. Another use of the colon in references that flies in the face of the recommendations made in usage guides is seen in references to chapters, as seen in the following example from the AMA Manual of Style,2,p83 in which a colon follows the preposition “in”: Boushey CJ. Application of research paradigms to nutrition practice. In: Coulston AM, Boushey CJ, Ferruzzi MG, eds. Nutrition in the Prevention […]

Deciding how to decide: Using the Digital Preservation Storage Criteria

The Digital Preservation Storage Criteria (hereafter, the Criteria) grew out of a community discussion at the 12th International Conference on Digital Preservation (iPRES 2015) on the evolving landscape of digital preservation storage approaches. A Working Group convened to develop guidance for organizations that either use or provide digital preservation storage. The first version of the Criteria was presented at an iPRES 2016 workshop and outlined the Working Group’s preliminary results and sought feedback. The Working Group has shared iterative versions over the last three years that have been informed by community feedback gathered through conference sessions, online review and a survey. Possible uses of the Criteria include helping organizations to develop requirements for their digital preservation storage, evaluating digital preservation storage solutions, raising awareness about digital preservation storage, and providing training materials to inform practitioners and others, including a game to demonstrate how the Criteria might be adapted for use. A Usage Guide accompanied the release of the current public iteration of the Criteria to help apply the Criteria. This iteration of the Criteria contains 61 criteria grouped into categories: Content Integrity, Cost Considerations, Flexibility, Information Security, Resilience, Scalability and Performance, Support, and Transparency. The unreleased draft, Version 4, includes an additional category: System Security. In addition to introducing the Criteria and providing background about their evolution, this article highlights new areas of development. First, the preliminary results from an ongoing effort to map the Criteria to relevant international digital preservation and information technology standards are presented. Second, updates to the Usage Guide are discussed. The Usage Guide is a supplement to the Criteria that provides the contextual information necessary for implementing the Criteria and includes sections on considerations such as risk management, cost, understanding independence and ensuring bit safety. Finally, examples of using the Criteria in various contexts are provided to encourage organizations to apply the Criteria to their own situation. The Criteria, the Usage Guide, the Criteria game and related documents are open and available for review at https://osf.io/sjc6u/ , where future additions and updates will be shared.

Gross Motor and Social Development of Children Development Media of Traditional Jumping Rope Modification Game

The purpose of this research is to know the validity, practicality and effectiveness of media traditional jumping rope modification game to improve the development of gross motor and social of children. The research method used Dick and Carey model development research with the following steps: a). Analyzing the need, b.) Analyzing learning, c.) Analyzing child characteristics and learning context, d.) Formulating specific learning objectives, e.) Develop research instruments, f.) Develop learning strategies, g.) Develop teaching materials, h.) Designing and implementing formative evaluation, i.) Revising learning. The subject of research taken is kindergarten children aged 5-6 years as much as 54 children. The subject of research also involves 2 material experts and media experts. Data collection using a product feasibility test poll from media experts and material experts, interviews on individual trials, interviews on small group trials and observation sheets on field trials with indicators on gross motor development, among others, coordinated body movements to train flexibility, balance and agility, jump over obstacles with a height of 20-40 cm, and perform a leap of 38-60 cm towards the target with obstacles. As for indicators of social development, among others, obey the rules of the game, play with peers, be cooperative with friends, and realize the rights and interests of others. Data analysis techniques using the N-Gain Score index. Development research resulted the product of the Game media usage Guide Book of "Lokota" and the Media game "Lokota" that has got validation of material experts and media experts with excellent results so it is worth using.

Of greengrocers, sports commentators, estate agents and television presenters: who’s in a usage guide and why

ABSTRACT Weiner (1988. “On Editing a Usage Guide.” In Words for Robert Burchfield’s Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by E. G. Stanley, and T. F. Hoad, 171–183. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 173) describes usage guides as being ‘as broad as the English language, covering spelling, punctuation, phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexis, and involving sociolinguistic considerations’. This paper focusses on these ‘sociolinguistic considerations’, to try and answer the question of why people like greengrocers, sports commentators, estate agents and television presenters are stigmatised for certain perceived linguistic errors. The greengrocer’s apostrophe is well known (Beal, Joan C. 2010. “The Grocer’s Apostrophe: Popular Prescriptivism in the Twenty-First Century.” English Today 26 (2): 57–64), but the other three categories, the sports commentators’ adverb (the flat adverb), the estate agent’s pronoun (yourselves for you) and the television presenter’s demonstrative pronoun (these/those ones), I first encountered in Caroline Taggart’s Her Ladyship’s Guide to the Queen’s English (2010), one of the three most recent and most prescriptive publications in the HUGE database of usage guides and usage problems. Discussing Taggart’s usage guide as a case study, I will go into the question of why certain groups of speakers are made into the object of prescriptivism and will argue that the British class system plays an important role in this. As a case study, this article highlights the need for more linguists to view usage guides as a genre that needs to be treated critically rather than be ignored, as is generally the case at present.

Describing Prescriptivism: Usage Guides and Usage Problems in British and American English by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade

Describing Prescriptivism: Usage Guides and Usage Problems in British and American English by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade

Editorial

Editorial Edward Finegan This issue of Dictionaries is my last as editor, and toward the end of the editorial I'll offer some personal comments. First, a few words about the contents of the issue. Two articles undertake forms of forensic dictionary analysis. Javier Ruano-García continues his deep dive into Wright's English Dialect Dictionary, focusing here on the contributions of correspondents, especially women, in particular Angelina Parker. Relying crucially on the EDD Online and on manuscript evidence, Ruano-García uncovers the indispensable contributions Parker made to the EDD's Oxfordshire data. The article sheds welcome light on the important, but often overlooked, role women have played in the lexicographical enterprise. In a forensic foray of a different kind, Michael Adams explores the relationship between Mitford Mathews and Sir William Craigie in the making of the Dictionary of American English. Adams puts under the microscope eighty-four items Mathews added to his later Dictionary of Americanisms, reinstated from a dissertation he had submitted to the University of Chicago but that did not find a place in Craigie's DAE. The conflicts between OED veteran editor Craigie and the culturally proud and much younger Mathews is a compelling story of conflicting ideologies and of identity lexicography. In their article, Don Chapman, Amanda Fronk, and Mark Davies explore whether dictionaries or corpora have been more effective in identifying earliest citations. They compare the earliest dating of particular senses of seventy-five denominal verbs like earmark and upgrade in twenty monolingual American dictionaries and in the Corpus of Historical American English. Their findings indicate that neither the dictionaries nor the 400-million-word COHA invariably outperforms the [End Page ix] other, and they conclude that reading programs and citation files continue to be valuable reservoirs of data in dictionary making. The forum on vernacular lexicographies, with seven articles illustrating quite different views and approaches to the topic, is introduced by Orión Montoya, who reports being drawn to the far side of the "implicit boundary" between "real" and "lay" lexicography detected in my invitation to initiate a forum on the topic. "Who is in a position to police these borders, and how?" Montoya asks. What possibilities arise in lexicography "by looking beyond the 'essentially monumental' to consider the whole assemblage of 'domestic and functional' practices by which people grapple with meaning together? How might we understand our own lexicographical practices from that broader viewpoint?" Given Montoya's comments on individual contributions in the introduction, I need say here only that the articles are delightfully wide-ranging, touching on T-shirts and coffee mugs, on Urban Dictionary and the OED, on Polish, Spanglish, and Old English, on artists' dictionaries, talking dictionaries, and anti-dictionaries, and on demons, devils, and unicorns, as well as on the key role lay lexicography and its lexicographers play in preserving knowledge of vernacular language and culture for posterity. The year 2020 has been a difficult one around the world, and Covid-19 took the life of Madeline Kripke, a Fellow of the Dictionary Society of North America. Jonathon Green's remembrance of her is laden with fascinating and sometimes earthy details about "the dame of dictionaries" and her fabled collection. I'm grateful to David Jost, editor of DSNA's Newsletter, for allowing Green to republish his obituary in the journal. In the reviews section, Michael Adams assesses three works—Origin of Kibosh, The Life of Guy, and On the Study of Words, the last a revival of the famous Richard Chenevix Trench's nineteenth-century work. It was Trench who famously said that "in words contemplated singly, there are boundless stores of moral and historic truth, and no less of passion and imagination, laid up." Today, in an era when etymology and any focus on "words contemplated singly" has lost its glow in academic circles, Adams praises the other two books he reviews, each focusing on a single word, namely kibosh and guy. Don Chapman in his review of Describing Prescriptivism praises especially the book's treatment of the history of usage guides. In the third review, D. A. Lockhart observes that "We could stand, with little controversy, upon the principle that the two most...

Etymology and the Doctrine of Correctness: Word Meaning in Dictionaries of English Usage

Usage guides invariably include prescriptive codifying meanings for words like aggravate and infer. The guides do not always pronounce proscribed forms as incorrect, but when they claim incorrect meanings, irrespective of actual usage, they suggest the existence of some principle of language that can serve as an authority in correctness judgments about word meanings akin to grammatical rules for correctness judgments about morphology and syntax. What those principles might be is the topic of this paper. The most basic assumed principle is that words have discrete meanings and that speakers and writers use words incorrectly if they use them for senses they do not have. But this assumption does little more than restate the proscription. For general principles that can be used as an authority for claims of correctness, the most frequent appeal in usage guides is to etymology in both its narrow sense of word origins and its wider sense of word histories. Appeals to the related notions of confusion, differentiation, and slipshod extension support and reveal the assumptions about etymology underlying correctness claims.

Usage guides, social commentary and views on education in Late Modern Scotland

This contribution discusses two texts published at the height of Late Modern times (Mitchell 1799 and Anon. 1826), in order to trace the roots of well-established labels occurring in assessments of Scottish usage even to this day.1 In particular, attention is paid to the qualifiers that the books employ both to stigmatize and to commend forms, so as to outline the kind of ideological stance they conveyed. The two relatively short books are now included in the Corpus of Modern Scottish Writing, and will be presented within the framework of that collection as significant instances of books circulating when linguistic self-consciousness affected both upwardly-mobile speakers and well-educated users. Models of correct usage were found to be useful tools for the acquisition or improvement of both social status and prestige – aims which still resonate with users today and the pragmatic value of which is only just beginning to be explored in a new light.

PP44 Optimal Use Of Warfarin: Self-Monitoring From A Quebec Perspective

IntroductionFrequent standard International Normalized Ratio (INR) monitoring by health professionals is one of the major inconveniences reported by warfarin users. However, portable coagulometers are now available to reduce this burden by allowing patients to self-monitor their INR in the comfort of their home, thereby reducing their visiting frequency to a medical clinic. The aim of this work was thus to elaborate recommendations on the use of self-monitoring in the management of warfarin-treated patients in the province of Quebec.MethodsSystematic literature reviews were conducted to retrieve the most up-to-date scientific data from primary studies and pharmacoeconomic evaluations as well as recommendations from published clinical practice guidelines. This information was then triangulated with the experiential knowledge of Quebec experts and clinicians collaborating on the project.ResultsThe scientific, contextual and experiential evidence gathered during this work provided convincing support for the use of self-monitoring for long-term warfarin-treated patients, leading to a more effective treatment than standard monitoring while being safe, cost-effective and potentially improving patients’ quality of life. However, physical and mental limitations can hinder the use of portable coagulometers, outlining the need for caution in the selection and support of self-monitoring patients.ConclusionsThis work led to the development of specific recommendations on the use of self-monitoring along with a clinical tool to help discussion between patients and health professionals leading to a shared decision-making. This work will be part of two optimal usage guides on oral anticoagulant therapy to be published by the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux.

Attitudes to usage vs. actual language use: The case ofliterallyin American English

From a descriptive point of view,literallyis seen as ‘a case of semantic change in progress’ (Israel, 2002: 424), exemplified through the shift from uses such asThis word literally means ‘water’toThis book literally blew my mind. This process of change has been noticed and commented on by language commentators and usage guide writers. In other words, apart from being a case of change in progress,literallyis also a usage problem. Usage problems are ‘features of divided usage’, or ‘instances of usage that have attracted sociolinguistic controversy’ (Tieken–Boon van Ostade, 2015: 57; cf. Kostadinova, 2018). The case of the wordliterally, then, lends itself to an investigation of the relationship between prescriptive approaches to language use typically found in usage guides, and processes of language variation and change, as I will do in this paper. As a crucial aspect to this discussion, I will also address some of the attitudes speakers hold towards the newer uses ofliterally, as attitudes of speakers can help us better understand why prescriptivism may or may not influence language variation and change. In what follows, I will first discuss the variant uses ofliterallyfound in present-day English, and then consider findings on three perspectives on the variation in the use ofliterally, viz. the ‘usage guide’ perspective, the ‘actual use’ perspective and the ‘speakers’ attitudes’ perspective.

The HUGE presence of Lindley Murray

The grammarian Lindley Murray (1745–1826), according to Monaghan (1996), was the author of the best selling English grammar book of all times, calledEnglish Grammarand first published in 1795. Not surprisingly, therefore, his work was subjected to severe criticism by later grammarians as well as by authors of usage guides, who may have thought that Murray's success might negatively influence the sales figures of their own books. As the publication history of the grammar in Alston (1965) suggests, Murray was also the most popular grammarian of the late 18thand perhaps the entire 19thcentury, and this is most clearly reflected in the way in which a wide range of 19th- and even some 20th-century literary authors, from both sides of the Atlantic, mentioned Lindley Murray in their novels. Examples are Harriet Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom's Cabin, 1852), George Eliot (Middlemarch, 1871–2), Charles Dickens, in several of his novels (Sketches by Boz, 1836;Nicholas Nickleby, 1838–9;The Old Curiosity Shop1840–1;Dombey & Son, 1846–8); Oscar Wilde (Miner and Minor Poets, 1887) and James Joyce (Ulysses, 1918) (Fens–de Zeeuw, 2011: 170–2). Another example is Edgar Allen Poe, who according to Hayes (2000) grew up with Murray's textbooks and used his writings as a kind of linguistic touchstone, especially in his reviews. Many more writers could be mentioned, and not only literary ones, for in a recent paper in which Crystal (2018) analysed the presence of linguistic elements in issues ofPunchpublished during the 19thcentury, he discovered that ‘[w]heneverPunchdebates grammar, it refers to Lindley Murray’. Murray, according to Crystal, ‘is the only grammarian to receive any mention throughout the period, and his name turns up in 19 articles’ (Crystal, 2018: 86). Murray had become synonymous with grammar prescription, and even in the early 20thcentury, he was still referred to as ‘the father of English Grammar’ (Johnson, 1904: 365).

What is the difference between thus and thusly

Usage guides and dictionaries largely agree that thusly was coined for humorous purposes in the mid-nineteenth century in the US as a hypercorrect substitute for thus (Butterfield 2007:157). Most of the prescriptive usage guides treat thusly critically and describe it as “best-avoided” and replaced by thus or they even designate it as a “non-word” (Lukač and Tieken-Boon van Ostade forthcoming).To find out what the acceptability ratings for the word are currently, together with Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I conducted an online survey made available between July and September 2015, in which we asked the participants to rate the word on a six-fold acceptability scale (informal speech, formal speech, informal writing, formal writing, netspeak, and unacceptable under any circumstances).In this paper, with the survey findings as my starting point, I aim to establish whether a current change in progress correlates with higher acceptability ratings among younger speakers. I will do so by exploring large-scale corpora consisting of web-based data, the Global Web-Based Corpus (GloWbE) (Davies 2013) and the NOW Corpus (Davies 2013), where a higher number of occurrences of this low-frequency word can be found. I suspect that, in spite of prescriptions against the word’s usage, thusly is slowly gaining status and legitimacy. Moreover, as thusly is assigned American origin, and it is most commonly found in American usage guides (Lukač and Tieken-Boon van Ostade forthcoming), I will explore the frequency of its usage across different varieties of English as well as its meanings in context. All in all, in this paper I aim to shed light on the interplay between the treatment of thusly in prescriptive literature, the changes in speakers’ attitudes, and the variation in its usage.