Disputes in English grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by unattributed statements.
You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel worded statements.
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)
English grammar series

English grammar
This box: view • talk • edit

Disputed English grammar denotes disagreement about whether given constructions constitute correct English. Such disagreements are often quite impassioned. Even when there is no disagreement over a given construction — when everyone agrees that it is incorrect — English speakers will sometimes express anger on encountering it.[1][2]

Contents

[edit] Factors in disputes

The following commonly factor into disputes:

No central authority
Unlike some languages, such as French, there is no governing academy for the English language. For this reason, different people often take different works of reference as authoritative. Others argue that, lacking a recognized authority, correctness is defined by common usage. That is, if a certain construction or usage becomes correct once its use is sufficiently prevalent.
Tradition
Older or better-established constructions—or those perceived as such—are often considered superior.
Education
In contrast to tradition, many newer constructions and recent innovations originate from or are associated with poorly educated, or inexperienced users, or users of non-standard varieties. Such usages are often rejected by some speakers as mistakes or corruptions while embraced by others.
Authority
Use by widely respected authors can lend credibility and favor toward a particular construction; for instance, Ernest Hemingway is known for beginning sentences with And.[3] However, this is not a uniform rule; for instance, the intentional use of a non-standard style, such as an eye dialect, would not influence the canonical style.
Etymology
In cases involving the syntax of a specific word, the etymology of the word might be seen as supporting one construction over another. For example, many have objected to the phrase under the circumstances, pointing out the Latin root of the word circumstance suggests a ring or circle enclosing where one stands.
Logic and consistency
Often speakers will argue that a certain usage is inherently more logical than another, or that it is more consistent with other undisputed usages.
Clarity
Since the purpose of language is communication, as per the Gricean maxims, a speaker who finds a given construction to be clearer than another will likely consider it to be more correct.
Clarity and consistency
Some argue that a construction that can produce ambiguities, even in only some circumstances, is best avoided altogether.
Differences in style and register
Certain styles and registers of speech may be stigmatized by some users . For example uncommon, but "technically correct", usages may be perceived as hypercorrections or may be perceived as pretentious by some, but others may consider the avoidance of the same usage a mark of ignorance.

Speakers and writers frequently do not consider it necessary to justify their positions on a particular usage, taking a priori that a given usage is correct or incorrect. Such arguments are often complicated by the user's reliance on false ideas on linguistic matters, such as the impression that a particular expression is newer than it really is.[4]

[edit] Prescription and description

Main articles: Linguistic prescription and Description (linguistics)

The prescriptivist and descriptivist approaches often clash: the former prescribes how English should be spoken; the latter describes how English is spoken. An extreme prescriptivist might maintain that even if every sentence of actual English used a certain construction, that construction could still be incorrect; and conversely, an extreme descriptivist might maintain that any English sentence that is ever uttered is part of the English language and hence by definition correct.[5] In practice, however, speakers lie between these two extremes, holding that because English changes with time and is governed in large measure by convention, a construction must be considered correct once it is universal, but also that a given sentence can be "incorrect" if it violates the conventions of English.

[edit] Different forms of English

One complicating factor is that there are many different forms of English, often with different conventions; what is plainly grammatical in one form may be plainly ungrammatical in another.

[edit] English internationally

English is spoken worldwide, and while the Standard English grammar that is generally taught in schools around the world may vary only slightly, if at all, in actual usage the English of one country is not always the English of another. For example, in addition to the differences in accent, spelling, and vocabulary, there are many points of spoken grammar that differ between and among the various American, British, and other dialects of the English language in everyday use. Ordinarily, speakers will accept many national dialects as "correct", but may deem only one to be correct in a given setting, in the same way that an English-speaker might regard French as correct without considering it as correct English. Nonetheless, disputes can sometimes arise; for example, in India it is a matter of some debate whether American, British, or Indian English is the best form for use.[6] [7]

[edit] Regional dialects and ethnolects

In contrast to their general high level of tolerance for the dialects of other English-speaking countries, speakers often express disdain for features of certain regional or ethnic dialects, such as Southern American English's use of y'all or Geordies' use of "yous" as the second-person plural personal pronoun, or non-standard forms of "to be" such as "The old dock bes under water most of the year" (Newfoundland English) or "That dock be under water every other week" (Ebonics).

Such disdain may not be restricted to points of grammar; speakers often criticize regional accents and vocabulary as well.

Arguments related to regional dialects must center on questions of what constitutes Standard English; for example, since fairly divergent dialects from many different countries are widely accepted as Standard English, it is not always clear why certain regional dialects, which may even be very similar to their standard counterparts, are not.

[edit] Register

Different constructions are acceptable in different registers of English; for example, a given construction will often be seen as too formal or too informal for a given situation.

Speakers do not always distinguish between "correct" English and the English of formal registers; for example, they might say that a given construction is incorrect for formal writing, but acceptable in ordinary writing or in everyday speech. Whereas linguists will often describe a construction as being correct in a certain register but not in another, English speakers as a whole tend to view "correct English" as a singular entity — either viewing informal registers as allowing deviations from correctness, or viewing formal registers as imposing additional syntactic constraints beyond mere correctness, or both.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Liberman, Mark (2005-11-04). Word rage outside the Anglosphere?. Language Log.
  2. ^ Zimmer, Benjamin (2006-03-05). Pioneers of word rage. Language Log.
  3. ^ Call for Papers on Hemingway's influence on grammar
  4. ^ Freeman, Jan. "Losing our illusions", The Boston Globe, 2005-10-09. 
  5. ^ K. Pullum, Geoffrey (2005-01-26). "Everything is correct" versus "nothing is relevant". Language Log.
  6. ^ Hohenthal, Annika (2001-06-05). The Model for English in India - the Informants' Views.
  7. ^ Limerick, James (2002). English in a global context. Victoria University.

[edit] Examples

The following are articles about various disputed usages:

[edit] See also

Languages