Can You “Munch” on Cheese?

While researching for another article, I came across this entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage, which explains the word munch: “Copperud 1970, 1980 does not like munch when it is used of eating something that does not crunch.” I just love that. I can absolutely imagine an uptight grammarian sticking their nose up when someone dares to use munch to describe a food that doesn’t truly *crunch*.

This isn’t the first time a dictionary entry has made me laugh out loud, and if you ever have an afternoon to fill, I highly recommend picking up the Dictionary of English Usage and searching for hidden gems like this. But beyond the hilarious concept of someone being offended by the misuse of munch lies a much bigger issue: that of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism.

This issue is EVERYWHERE in the world of grammar, and it’s important to understand the basics of the debate so that you have the necessary context as you dive into more specific issues.

Why Copperud Says You Can’t Munch on Cheese

First, though, we need to clear up this incredibly important munch issue.

Roy H. Copperud is the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. He was also a journalism professor and was regarded in his day (he passed away in 1991 at the age of 76) as an expert on the English language. In his style guide, he stated that munch should only be used when you’re talking about eating something that actually crunches.

However, the Dictionary of English Usage is primarily concerned with how people ACTUALLY use words, not how English professors WANT people to use words. After quoting Copperud’s statement, the dictionary goes on to say, “Our evidence suggests that it is frequently used without reference to sound and has been for some time,” citing examples like “he munched Wisconsin cheese” and “herds of cattle . . . munching the succulent grasses.”

The dictionary concludes, “If there is any fault here, it may be that lexicographers have been too much influenced by the onomatopoeic origin of the word and not enough by the way writers use the word.” Basically, they’re telling Copperud to chill out.

Strictly Speaking, Copperud Might Be Correct.

If we’re being really strict here, Copperud is technically correct. Onomatopoeias are words that suggest certain sounds by their pronunciation. Put simply, the word is supposed to match the sound.

In the Index to English, Ebbitt & Ebbitt describe onomatopoeias this way: “Using sounds that match the sense of a passage in order to intensify its meaning is a stylistic device known as onomatopoeia.”

Munch originated as an onomatopoeia, so it should match the sound that it’s describing. However, onomatopoeias sometimes evolve over time, broadening in usage. For example, I’ve rarely heard a cat actually say “meow”—if we want to be truly onomatopoetic, I think the word used to describe their vocalization would be something closer to “reeoOOooOOw” (yes, I listened to many cat YouTube videos to come up with that spelling).

We can argue all day about the origins of munch and whether the word should still be restricted to its original meaning, but really we’d be digging into a much larger issue of prescriptivism and descriptivism.

The Real Issue: Prescriptivism or Descriptivism

Prescriptivist: one who advocates prescriptive principles especially in grammar (prescriptive: seeking to prescribe or lay down a rule)

In short, a prescriptivist wants to make lots of rules and then make everyone follow those rules.

Descriptivist: one who advocates for the methods of descriptive linguistics (descriptive: presenting observations about the characteristics of someone or something)

Basically, a descriptivist wants to observe how language is used in the real world and let it evolve naturally without trying to establish strict rules.

A Constant Battle in the English World

The tug-of-war between prescriptivists—who want to lay down the law and enforce every rule—and descriptivists—who want to let language evolve naturally—is constant in the world of English grammar. The categories are not black and white; most people fall somewhere in between, with varying opinions on how strictly certain grammar rules should be enforced.

This conflict is part of the reason why English grammar is so darn complicated. Even the most expert grammarians don’t agree with one another on which rules should be enforced.

Descriptivists accuse prescriptivists of refusing to let go of arbitrary and sometimes nonsensical rules. According to Steven Pinker (a popular psycholinguist), “Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since.”

Prescriptivists, in turn, abhor and possibly even fear the potential chaos that would result if we had no rules governing English. They value the clarity and grace that comes from clear standards of language.

Who Is Correct?

Personally, I don’t think either side is completely correct. I think we find the best results somewhere in the middle: We need rules in order to make the language comprehensible, but there are some rules that just don’t make any sense and should be ignored. Additionally, I’ve found that some of the most beautiful language results from flouting even those rules that are generally good practice!

In short, I think we should have a general baseline of sensible rules but not freak out if authors choose to occasionally break those rules for stylistic reasons.

How It All Started

The battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists began in the late 16th century. This was when the British Empire was really taking shape, as overseas colonies and trading posts were established all over the world. As the empire expanded, the British elite wanted their language to reflect and encourage its success. They knew that part of the Roman Empire’s success could be attributed to the classical Latin language, so they wanted the English language to be just as grand.

So they got this idea in their heads that, for the British Empire to be as successful as the Roman Empire was, English needed to be as good (even as “perfect”) as Latin; however, the way they chose to accomplish this was by making English follow Latin rules, even though it was a completely different language. They didn’t want English to be its own version of “perfect”—they wanted it to be as close to Latin as possible.

That’s why we have rules like “don’t end a sentence with a preposition” and “don’t split an infinitive.” These are Latin rules that were adopted into the English language.

Over the years, prescriptivists came up with more and more rules, some taken from Latin and others just invented based on their own personal preferences. Now we have a LOT of English grammar rules, and not everyone agrees on which are actually necessary.

Dictionaries vs. Style Guides

Each side—prescriptivists and descriptivists—has its own tools to further its aims.

For descriptivists, that tool is dictionaries. Dictionaries describe how the English language is actually used in real life. As people make up new words and new meanings for existing words, the dictionary editors update entries and add new ones. Dictionaries are constantly evolving and changing based on how the language is being used.

The tool of the prescriptivists is the style guide. Style guides list rules and standards for people to follow in order to achieve “correct” grammar. Anyone can write their own style guide, but the most popular ones (such as The Chicago Manual of Style and the APA style guide) are well-established and trusted. These guides do change over time, but not as frequently as dictionaries. They’re less likely to conform to usage, especially when it comes to long-held rules.

This Is How We Rebel

I love learning about the rules of English grammar, but there are definitely some rules that I think are absolute nonsense. Most of the rules that I disagree with were adopted from Latin in the 16th century and just don’t make any sense in English. Here’s a list of the top offenders (click on each one to learn more about it!):

• Never start a sentence with and, but, or, also, or however
• Never end a sentence with a preposition
• Never split an infinitive

Here’s the takeaway: Know the rules of grammar, but don’t be afraid to break them when you have a good reason. If the rule isn’t logical, you don’t need to stick by it. Some of the best English authors in history blatantly ignored certain rules of grammar, but they did so with the knowledge of what they were doing and why.

What questions do you have about prescriptivism and descriptivism? Let me know in the comments!

Click here to learn about 20 of the NEWEST words in English!

Sources:

• Ebbitt, D. R., and W. R. Ebbitt. Index to English. 8th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
• Einsohn, Amy. The Copyeditor’s Handbook. 3rd ed. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: Univ of California Pr, 2011.
• Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage. 14th ed. Taunton, MA: QuadGraphics, 2016.