Parts of Speech: Essays on English — Text and Context

The People’s Right to Remake Words

Matthews repeatedly insists that when “the people as a whole accept a word as having a certain meaning, that is and must be the meaning of the word thereafter.” He illustrates this with the fate of vaudeville: originally a Parisian comic play with songs, the term was adopted in America to mean a variety show, and no amount of protest can restore its earlier sense. The same process is at work with née, which Matthews finds misused in Matthew Arnold’s letters to mean “formerly” rather than “born.” He cites an editor who writes “née Louisa Montefiore” for a woman who was born with that name—a usage Matthews calls an “absurdity.” The implication is clear: even careful writers cannot halt the drift of language once the majority has spoken.

Borrowed Words and Their Perils

Matthews devotes considerable attention to French loanwords that have been adopted into English with altered or mangled meanings. He asks why actors prefer répertoire to repertory, why music teachers call their schools conservatoire instead of conservatory, and why female pianists style themselves pianistes as if that were the feminine of pianist. He notes that Andrew Lang, who objects to a “delightful grammatical form” in a rag-bag journal, himself writes asphalte instead of asphalt. The pattern is one of inconsistency: even critics of linguistic decay are themselves guilty of borrowing that obscures meaning. Matthews does not condemn all borrowing, but he warns that it is “dangerous” when it destroys precision.

Spelling Reform as a Practical Campaign

Matthews positions himself as a moderate in the spelling-reform debate. He is “by no means a radical ‘spelling-reformer,’” but he believes that anyone who wishes to keep English “up to its topmost efficiency” should aid the tendency toward simplification. His own text uses forms like altho and tho consistently, and he cites Sainte-Beuve’s remark that orthography will never be entirely reformed but can be made “less vicious.” The essays on orthography argue that simplification has been at work “unceasingly ever since the language came into existence.” Matthews’s approach is pragmatic: he advocates for small, incremental changes rather than wholesale overhaul, and he demonstrates his commitment by example rather than by decree.

Theatrical Terms and the Instability of Jargon

Matthews traces how specialized theatrical vocabulary shifts as it enters general use. He notes that vaudeville in Paris had “nothing to do with the ‘variety show,’” yet in New York the two became synonymous. He also observes the rise of artiste for performers, a borrowing he finds pretentious. The essay on theatrical terms reveals a broader pattern: words that begin as precise technical terms are “forever warped beyond correction” once adopted by the public. Matthews’s tone is resigned rather than indignant; he accepts that language change is inevitable, even when it leads to what he considers error.

Matthews’s essays are best read as a series of case studies in linguistic democracy. He does not offer a systematic theory of language change, but his examples—from vaudeville to née to simplified spelling—cohere around a single insight: usage, not authority, determines meaning. Readers interested in the history of American English or in early arguments for spelling reform will find Matthews a lively, if occasionally pedantic, guide. His own prose, with its deliberate simplifications, serves as a practical demonstration of the principles he advocates.