George Bernard Shaw, the eminent Irish playwright, critic, and political activist, was not merely a master wordsmith but also a profound analyst and trenchant critic of the English language itself. Throughout his extensive body of work, including plays, prefaces, and public pronouncements, Shaw consistently challenged conventional notions of linguistic correctness, arguing vehemently against the existence of a singular, immutable “correct English.” His arguments stemmed from a deep-seated conviction that the English language, particularly its orthography and the social hierarchies it reinforced, was inefficient, illogical, and fundamentally undemocratic. Shaw envisioned a world where language served as a clear, accessible tool for communication rather than a labyrinthine system designed to maintain social distinctions.
Shaw’s linguistic reform efforts were deeply intertwined with his broader socialist and progressive ideals. He saw the prevailing standards of “correct English” not as a natural evolution of clarity or beauty, but as an artificial construct perpetuated by a conservative elite to preserve their social standing and exclude the less privileged. For Shaw, the insistence on a particular pronunciation or grammatical rule often had little to do with logical coherence or communicative efficiency and everything to do with snobbery and an arbitrary class system. His criticisms were not born of a disdain for the language itself, but rather a passionate desire to liberate it from what he perceived as its self-imposed shackles, making it a more rational and universally accessible medium.
Shaw's Arguments Against 'Correct English'
One of Shaw’s most foundational and frequently reiterated arguments against the concept of “correct English” centered on the profound disconnect between English spelling and pronunciation. He viewed English orthography as a chaotic and utterly irrational system, a “patent absurdity” that defied all common sense. Unlike many European languages where spelling largely corresponds to sound, English is replete with silent letters, multiple spellings for the same sound, and multiple pronunciations for the same spelling. Shaw famously illustrated this absurdity by coining the word “ghoti,” which, he argued, could logically be pronounced “fish” if one applied the “gh” from “enough,” the “o” from “women,” and the “ti” from “nation.” This illustrative example, while perhaps apocryphal in its direct attribution to Shaw, perfectly encapsulates his critique: how could there be a “correct” pronunciation when the written form offered so little guidance and was so riddled with inconsistencies? He contended that this orthographic anarchy made English exceptionally difficult to learn, both for native speakers and especially for foreigners, leading to wasted time and effort in education that could be better spent on substance. This inefficiency was a major impediment to literacy and intellectual progress.
Furthermore, Shaw vehemently rejected the idea of a single, universally “correct” pronunciation, understanding that such a standard was largely a social construct. He recognized that what was often labeled “correct English” was, in essence, Received Pronunciation (RP), the accent typically associated with the educated classes in Southern England, particularly those attending public schools and Oxbridge. Shaw, an Irishman himself, was keenly aware of the rich tapestry of English dialects and accents, each possessing its own validity and expressiveness. He argued that to elevate one particular accent, born of social privilege, above all others was arbitrary and discriminatory. His iconic play Pygmalion (later adapted as My Fair Lady) serves as his most vivid and extended dramatization of this very argument. Eliza Doolittle’s journey from a Cockney flower girl to a refined lady hinges entirely on her acquisition of RP, illustrating how language, specifically accent, functions as a powerful marker of social class and a barrier to upward social mobility. Shaw’s point was that Eliza’s Cockney was not inherently “incorrect” or less communicative; it was merely socially undesirable in certain contexts. The play thus exposes the snobbery and arbitrary nature of linguistic “correctness” as a tool for social stratification, demonstrating that “correctness” is less about linguistic purity and more about social acceptance and power dynamics.
Another crucial aspect of Shaw’s argument was his acute awareness of language’s inherent fluidity and evolutionary nature. He understood that language is not a static edifice but a dynamic, living entity constantly undergoing change. New words are coined, old words fall out of use, meanings shift, grammatical structures evolve, and pronunciations naturally drift over time and across generations. Given this perpetual state of flux, Shaw posited, any attempt to define and enforce a fixed “correct English” was fundamentally futile and an exercise in linguistic archaeology rather than practical communication. He would likely have pointed to the historical changes in English itself, noting how Chaucerian English differs vastly from Shakespearean, which in turn differs from Victorian, and so on. What was considered “correct” in one era often became archaic or even “incorrect” in another. Prescriptive grammarians, in Shaw’s view, were like King Canute commanding the tide not to come in; their efforts to stem the natural flow of linguistic change were ultimately doomed to fail and only served to stifle the organic development and expressiveness of the language.
Shaw also mounted a powerful critique against the rigid, often illogical, rules of prescriptive grammar that were taught in schools and enforced by self-appointed linguistic authorities. He saw many of these rules as arbitrary conventions, frequently borrowed from Latin grammar—a language with a fundamentally different structure—and imposed artificially on English. For instance, the “rule” against ending a sentence with a preposition or splitting an infinitive (e.g., “to boldly go”) were common targets of his scorn. Shaw argued that such rules often hindered natural, effective communication and were routinely violated by native speakers, even by those who purported to follow them, in everyday speech and even in the works of revered authors. He believed that the true measure of language was its ability to communicate clearly and efficiently, not its adherence to a set of pedantic, often unscientific, dictates. To Shaw, focusing on such minutiae distracted from the true purpose of language and imposed an unnecessary burden on learners, prioritizing artificial “correctness” over clarity and vigor.
Beyond the specific mechanics of spelling and grammar, Shaw’s arguments were deeply rooted in his desire for a more democratic and egalitarian society. He believed that the convoluted nature of English spelling and the arbitrary imposition of an elite “correct” standard created significant barriers to education and social mobility for the vast majority of the population. If language acquisition was made unnecessarily difficult, it served to exclude those without the leisure or resources to master its complexities, thus perpetuating social inequality. Shaw was a fervent advocate for phonetic reform precisely because he saw it as a means to democratize access to literacy and knowledge. He argued that if English were spelled phonetically, it would be far simpler to learn to read and write, thereby empowering the working classes and bridging the educational divide. This belief was so strong that he famously left a significant portion of his estate to fund the development of a new, truly phonetic alphabet for English, which became known as the Shavian alphabet. His will stipulated that the alphabet should be “of at least 40 letters so as to provide for the accurate transcription of English speech.” This act was a tangible manifestation of his conviction that linguistic reform was a vital component of social reform.
Moreover, Shaw recognized the inherent subjectivity in what constitutes “good” or “correct” language, asserting that these qualities are largely dependent on context, audience, and communicative purpose. The language appropriate for a scientific paper differs from that used in a poem, a legal document, or a casual conversation. Each mode of expression can be “correct” or effective within its specific domain, yet none embodies an absolute standard applicable across all contexts. The notion of a singular “correct English” thus struck Shaw as simplistic and restrictive, failing to acknowledge the rich functional diversity and adaptability of language. He valued expressiveness and clarity over adherence to rigid, universal rules, understanding that a vibrant language needed the flexibility to serve varied communicative needs.
Finally, Shaw’s critique of “correct English” was also a profound challenge to intellectual snobbery and linguistic pedantry. He perceived the champions of “correctness” as often driven by a desire to signal their own superior education and breeding, using language as a weapon of exclusion rather than a tool of connection. His plays often satirized characters who rigidly adhered to linguistic conventions, portraying them as narrow-minded or out of touch with the realities of human communication. For Shaw, true mastery of language lay in the ability to communicate effectively, persuasively, and beautifully, regardless of whether one adhered to every antiquated rule laid down by grammarians. He championed a vibrant, living English that could adapt, innovate, and serve the expressive needs of all its speakers, free from the artificial constraints imposed by those who sought to police its boundaries for social rather than linguistic reasons.
In essence, George Bernard Shaw’s arguments against the notion of a fixed “correct English” were multifaceted, stemming from his sharp intellect and his progressive social ideals. He contended that the English language, particularly its spelling, was a monument to irrationality, making it unnecessarily difficult to learn and master. This linguistic chaos, coupled with the arbitrary elevation of certain dialects and pronunciations (like Received Pronunciation) based on social class rather than intrinsic merit, created significant barriers to educational access and social mobility for the common person.
Shaw further argued that language is an inherently fluid and evolving entity, rendering any attempt to impose a static definition of “correctness” both futile and counterproductive. He challenged the prescriptive grammatical rules often taught as sacrosanct, viewing many of them as illogical impositions derived from other languages or merely arbitrary conventions that hindered natural and effective communication. His overarching vision was for a democratized English, unburdened by an archaic orthography and freed from the social prejudices that used linguistic “correctness” as a tool for exclusion. Shaw’s radical proposals, particularly his advocacy for a phonetic alphabet, were not merely academic exercises but deeply political acts aimed at leveling the social playing field by making language more accessible and equitable for all. His legacy continues to influence discussions about language standardization, education reform, and the intrinsic relationship between linguistic practices and social justice, encouraging a more descriptive and less prescriptive approach to understanding how English is truly spoken and written.