Last time, we drew the line between the descriptivists and the prescriptivists. Now it’s time to decide which side is right and which side is sleeping on the couch.

The case for descriptivism

by Jennifer Roach

Our words, our right

Language belongs to the people who use it. We use words every day—we chat with our friends, we make up stories for our children, we write love letters to our spouses, and we send Christmas cards to our families. Who has the right to come up behind us with a red pen and mark the errors on our tombstone? Who put them in charge? This isn’t France—we don’t have a ministry of language. The grammar cops here are self-appointed and power-hungry. Don’t let them beat you with their copy of Fowler’s; it’s your language, too.

Change is good

Language changes and evolves over time naturally. Today, we don’t speak in the same way that people 200 years ago did. Many words in our language have either faded out, or have changed in meaning so much that their previous meanings are obsolete. In fact, the entire history of our language is full of evolution. If you looked at an Old English text, you wouldn’t recognize the words. Our language was created through a gradual meshing of Germanic and Norman dialects and Romance languages (and that’s really simplifying it). Why should we fear change when the creators of the language didn’t? If we hadn’t moved forward, we’d still be speaking Old English—and trust me, the guttural sounds aren’t very pretty on girls.

Don’t be hatin’

The rules we are forced to follow today are arbitrary rules made up by a bunch of old stuffy guys 200 years ago as a way to distinguish between the classes. The entire purpose of “the rules” was to exclude the common man from the language. Today, that would be called discrimination, and last I checked, that was a bad thing.

What about the noobs?

Too many rules overwhelm new learners of English. Why should we make them memorize hundreds of rules when we don’t always follow them ourselves? English is by far the hardest language to learn. It makes more sense to make the language more accessible to new speakers. If you disagree, then don’t dare complain the next time you have an encounter with an immigrant who doesn’t understand you.

The case for prescriptivism

by John Roach

Learn the rules

Jenn, you ignorant slut.

These so-called grammar cops are not out to beat you down for the occasional slip of the tongue; they’re trying to help ensure easy and coherent communication.  When you’re dialing 911 because your house is on fire and all your precious love letters and Christmas cards are about to be so much ash, try telling the operator that you need help while ignoring the rules of grammar.  ”Fire, like, totally house mine” isn’t going to do much good.  ”My house is on fire,” which just so happens to follow the well-accepted patterns of English, just might spare your possessions and your family from a fiery fate. Why do you hate your family?

Change is good, when necessary

You’re right — language has changed.  No one’s going to argue that.  But saying it should continue changing willy-nilly is nonsensical.  In the past, women weren’t allowed to vote, take jobs, get divorces, or speak in churches. Now they can do all those things.  Should we change that, too? Or should we recognize that we’re reaching a more perfect state and hold steady when we reach it?  Just as grape juices changes into a delicate wine and then into vinegar, things change for the better, and then for the worse. Quit while you’re ahead.

The price for participation

Yes, English is difficult to learn. So is the violin. Not to mention walking, driving, and long division.  Should we just take the lines off the roads and let drivers roll down wherever they feel like? After all, it’s oh so hard to learn to keep your car on one side of the road. Tell you what — let’s take all the stop signs down too and see how everyone fares.  You’d probably also want those “Slow, children at play” signs gone, wouldn’t you, child hater?

Society is built on a set of generally accepted conventions that keep us, for the most part, from being a danger to ourselves and others.  You can rail against “the man” all you want, but it’s “the man” who keeps you safe at night.  So it is with language.  Grammar isn’t dictorial, it’s emergent.  There’s no dead white guys running around with rulers in their hands, waiting to smack you on the lips for misplacing a modifier. There’s just hundreds of millions of people who have agreed on a syntax and vocabulary with which to conduct their lives and business.

So who wins?

In the end, there’s no clear victor. Language is both of the people and by the people.  Just as in a political democracy, sometimes you follow the rules and sometimes you make the rules.  What’s important is the knowledge of the rules and the most appropriate times to bend them.  Rule No. 1 in writing is “Know your audience.”  If your audience demands formal grammar, give it to them.  If they expect a more relaxed approach, give them that. Be effective above all things, whether it means chafing under Fowler’s harsh rules or slipping into a tongue that’s more comfortable.

This article was written by Jennifer Roach http://jennifermroach.com Jennifer is a fiction writer, blogger, and freelance editor/proofreader. You can follow her on Twitter @jennifermroach or on MySpace . To see more posts click here

Related Posts

• That’s not a word!