Usage: The Nice and Exacting Practice of Using the Correct Words Correctly
by Jennie WordenLast summer I spoke on two panels about grammar - one to a group of writers, the other to a group of editors. At both panels, audience members aired some of their most reviled grammatical mistakes. We thrashed over dangling modifiers, debated the merits of the split infinitive and the singular "they," and excoriated the sloppy application of verb tenses. Inevitably, among both groups of professionals, several participants wanted to also discuss whether it was appropriate to say "fairly unique," to use "impact" and "dialogue" as verbs, or to use "hopefully" as a sentence-level adverb.
This left the panelists in something of a quandary, for these questions, while certainly questions of language and of correctness, are not properly questions of grammar. Grammar consists of the rules we apply to parts of speech to ensure that they go in the correct order, in their correct forms, and relate to each other in a way that makes sense. Questions of how specific words should be used are more properly the province of usage. We hadn't advertised a panel on usage, but, always happy to discuss matters of language, we cheerfully accepted the shift in subject matter, carefully explained that we were now talking usage rather than grammar, and examined the questions of how to use words that we knew were correct in the most correct possible ways.
Many writers, wordsmiths, and editors find themselves pondering questions of usage - of how to use a given word properly. Grammar books and books on "correct writing," such as the venerable Strunk and White sometimes contain lists of frequently confused or frequently misused words (affect/effect; imply/infer; less/fewer). While you may certainly peruse and even attempt to memorize these, you may find that they don't address every question you have. You may also find that the explanations make little sense to you, or that they simply don't correspond to how you hear language used.
This is because these lists can rarely be comprehensive - they represent one compiler's observations of the words with which people commonly have difficulties. In addition, word usage, more than grammar, shifts over time - one generation's linguistic travesty is another generation's perfectly acceptable usage. (Traditionalists and linguistic conservatives still wince when faced with "hopefully" used as a sentence-level adverb: to them the sentence "Hopefully we'll have good weather for the launch" constitutes near unbearable sloppiness.). One generation's hip slang is another generation's incomprehensible archaism. (When was the last time you heard anyone nonchalantly say that they were "hep" to anything?)
So, if panels on grammar are not the appropriate venue for discussions on usage, if the coverage in grammar books is spotty, if lists of difficult words are hit and miss, then where is a writer to go in order to discover whether it is indeed appropriate to write "fairly unique"?
The first stop should be a solid dictionary with usage notes - Merriam-Webster's or American Heritage are good sources for American English; any of the standard Oxford tomes will address questions of British English. Writers of other Englishes (such as Canadian English or Australian English) should consult better known dictionaries of their own English.
Take the time to read the preface of your dictionary, and to get to know its parts, its quirks, and its governing philosophy. Is your dictionary descriptive in its approach to spelling and usage - does it record the prevailing linguistic and lexicographic trends - or is it more prescriptive - does it seek to establish correctness by applying rules to spelling and usage? Is it conservative - do the editors defer to older usages? - or progressive, looking to capture recent shifts in the ways words are used?
In establishing the definition of a word, lexicographers examine how the word is represented in literary sources; your dictionary will include examples from published writing, representing how the word is used in each definition presented. For "unique," Merriam-Webster's 11th Edition lists three usages and gives examples of each: (1) being the only one; (2) a) being without an equal; b) distinctively characteristic; and (3) unusual. Usages are listed in order of preference; the editors of Merriam Webster have chosen "being the only one" as the primary and therefore preferred meaning of "unique."
If you're using "unique" to mean "the only one," then you cannot modify it - something can't possibly be "very the only one." However, the editors at Merriam- Webster acknowledge that "unique" is often used to mean "unusual," (though by listing it third, they're making it clear that they don't favor this usage). Sticklers will decry any usage of unique with a modifier; as a writer you can decide how great a stickler you choose to be. You can rarely go wrong using the primary definition and following the usage examples given in your dictionary of choice.
Of course, in writing fiction, you may be compelled by the needs of the story to use risky or non-standard usages. Even if you're not writing in dialect (which presents its own problems), your narrative voice and your characters' voices will require you to break from standard usage. You may create a character in whose voice "fairly unique" sounds perfectly natural, and that's fine. However, the dictionary will also give you hints about regional or historical usages, which can help you avoid anachronistic terminology - if you know that the first recorded use of "unilateral" in English appears in 1802, you can avoid having a character say anything is unilateral in 1776.
The true usage wank will supplement the dictionary of reference with one or more usage guides, such as Fowler's Modern English Usage, or Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. As with a dictionary, for standard, modern usage, you want the most current edition available - old editions have historical interest and are great if you want to write correctly for someone writing in 1937 (the date on my Modern English Usage), but less useful if you're looking for currently accepted usages.
My Fowler's gives nearly a full column to the difficulties inherent in using "unique," eventually coming down firmly in the unmodifiable camp, and citing "…a rather unique distinction" as an example of "nonsense" (Fowler, 1937, p. 680). We can see from this entry that the misusage cited by Fowler was current when he prepared his book, which means that we know how to use the word correctly, according to Fowler, but also how to use it incorrectly but authentically, should we need to. Useful from a historical perspective - less useful if I'm trying to discern whether I can get away with saying "sort of unique" now.
I've used the question of whether we can modify "unique" to illustrate a common question of usage and a usage that is in transition. We frequently hear "unique" used to mean "unusual," and we can justify this usage as current. However, the dictionary told us that the "unusual" usage is not the preferred usage, and Fowler let us know that historically, grammarians considered any modified usage nonsensical even though some people used the word that way. So, in our writing, while we can perhaps justify "fairly unique," we might wish to forgo debate and choose "unusual" or drop the modifier. Although you are free to choose a less common accepted usage - especially in dialogue - you may find yourself called upon to defend your choice.
A final note about choosing usage standards is that your editor may also have a preference or may refer to a different dictionary, which may have slightly different things to say about preferred and accepted usages. As long as you have made your choices thoughtfully and can defend them, you should be fine.
©Jennie Worden
Jennie Worden is a grammarian, usage wank, and editor in Toronto.