Should we refer to “chairs” or to “chairmen” and “chairwomen” of standing committees in the Senate? Should the Washington Redskins change their name? And what about policies on college campuses that allow students to indicate their preferred pronouns when it comes to gender?
If you find yourself regularly debating or puzzled by these kinds of questions about politically correct language, linguist Anne Curzan might be able to provide some answers.
From her perspective as an historian of the English language, Curzan tackles a number of challenging topics raised by PC terminology. Who has the right to tell others how they should and shouldn’t use language—and when? Do “superficial” changes in the language we use really matter? What’s at stake in the debate?
“Politically correct” is no longer a neutral term (if it ever really was) in efforts to reform language in order to make it more respectful and inclusive of all persons. Now it can suggest overly sensitive, if not silly and unnecessary, crusades to change every day terminology. Fabricated language reforms such as personhole cover for manhole cover and vertically challenged for short are held up as symptomatic of the movement’s excesses.
Curzan discusses the merits and the criticisms of PC language, drawing from specific cases that have received national attention, and offers new perspectives on the important contemporary debates in the media about how we talk about issues and people in an ever-changing linguistic and social landscape.
Curzan is Arthur F. Thurnau professor of English and Associate Dean for Humanities at the University of Michigan, where she also holds faculty appointments in the linguistics department and the school of education.
