It’s March 4th again, which means that it’s National Grammar Day again, which means that it’s time to dig through the archives again and pull out some of the grammar myths that have been debunked here on Motivated Grammar this year. And that is the only fun part about National Grammar Day for me.
If you’re new here, you might be surprised at that. “But Gabe!” you cry, “Aren’t you all about grammar? Wouldn’t you love a day celebrating it?” And my response to that question is a curt no. You see, I’m all about grammar and language and the like. Hell, I’m in grad school studying it. But when most people say they’re interested in grammar, they mean they’re interested in learning a set of rules. And the rules they’re trying to learn hold about as much relationship to English as runway models’ clothes hold to the clothes in your wardrobe. These grammar rules — or to be more accurate, myths — are viewed as signs of high culture and linguistic erudition, but the truth is that they are far from the truth, and are at best harmless.
At their worst, these myths serve as a means for those who shout the loudest to shut up those who meekly try to use the language. I’ve known many people who’ve sought to improve their grammatical knowledge, only to be dismayed by the sheer number of un- and counter-intuitive rules that met them. In fact, in my younger years I was one of them. For you see, I grew up in a working-class family in a working-class town, and I thought that one of the keys to class mobility was an impeccable command of the English language. (As Peter Gabriel put it in “Big Time”, I was stretching my mouth to let those big words come right out.) And that command, I thought, would come through the study of grammatical primers.
But like my failed attempt to master the rules of etiquette, my attempt to master the so-called rules of grammar too met with defeat, as I found myself unable to keep so many seemingly arbitrary rules in my head. And so I gave up and figured I could learn all I needed to know about the English language by observation of skilled writers and speakers. I spent some substantial effort in high school mimicking the speech styles of friends whose speech I admired, and the writing style of good authors.
Through it all, though, I kept entertaining the notion that I’d eventually know all the rules. And then, over the course of a couple years and a couple courses in linguistics, I came to realize that my very goal was a load of hokum. Yes, there are rules to English, like verb conjugation, or that adjectives usually precede nouns. But every native speaker already knows these rules. The ones discussed in the books, the ones I was trying to learn, they’re just nits to pick. And the nits aren’t even ones that correspond to any real form of English anyway.
If you want to know the rules of English, look in an English-as-a-second-language textbook, not Strunk and White. If you want to know how to use English effectively, read and listen to those whose language you enjoy and admire. Good English is constrained by rules, not defined by them.
But now I’m rambling, so let me stop that and move on to presenting the truth behind ten of these minor myths that people dress up as rules. I’ve included a brief summary of why the myth is untrue, but for the full story, follow the links:
There’s nothing wrong with anyways. Anyway is the more common form, but that’s a historical accident. Related forms always and sometimes are more common than their s-less companions, so clearly anyways isn’t inherently ungrammatical.
Nothing’s wrong with center around. Despite the claims that this usage is logically inconsistent, and that centers on is necessary, center around has been a valid part of English for around 200 years now. No reason to stop now.
There’s not just one right way to say something. Do you worry if the past tense of dive is dived or dove? Or do you worry about shined and shone? Well, a lot of the time there isn’t a single right or best way of saying it. As it turns out, a lot factors can affect the decision. And often it’s best to go with your gut feeling.
Ending a sentence with a preposition is always acceptable. The myth that it isn’t is the result of a half-baked argument John Dryden concocted in the 17th century to explain why he was a better playwright than Ben Jonson. He was wrong about being better than Jonson, and he was wrong about the prepositions, too. Unfortunately, three-and-a-half centuries of people have fallen for his myth.
“Ebonics” isn’t lazy English. Ebonics, or African-American Vernacular English as linguists generally call it, isn’t a deficient form of English. It’s a dialect, or possibly even a creole, of English with its own distinctive and systematic syntactic, phonological, and morphological features.
Gender-neutral language isn’t bad language. Using words like spokesperson doesn’t harm the language, and doesn’t start us down some slippery slope where the word human will have to be replaced by huperson or something. Similarly, using they to refer to a single person of unknown gender is a usage that’s been going on for centuries.
Ms. is a standard and useful abbreviation. Sure, Ms. is newer than Mrs. and Miss, but it’s a standard title. It’s a good solution to the asymmetry that female titles depend on maritial status and the male title does not.
Jealous can be used to mean envious. Some people try to claim that jealousy and envy are totally distinct, but they’re not, and they’ve been used in overlapping senses since Chaucer’s time.
And a few myths from other blogs:
Non-literal literally is perfectly standard. This one’s a three-fer. Stan Carey, me, and Dominik Lukes all wrote posts, each inspired by the other, about non-literal uses of literally. All of us share the conclusion that non-literal literally has been used for years, by writers good and bad, and is here to stay. But the three of us disagree on whether or not it’s a stylistically good usage. I found this an interesting exercise in seeing how different descriptivists dispense usage advice.
A lot of what gets called “passive” isn’t really. Language commentators often denigrate an impersonal usage by calling it a “passive”, and demanding that it be converted to an active form. But lots of impersonal forms are active already, and there isn’t anything wrong with the passive anyway(s). Geoff Pullum explains the English passive over at Language Log.
Redundancy doesn’t make something ungrammatical or unacceptable. Stan Carey points out that English is threaded through with redundancy, so it’s clear that redundancy isn’t inherently a bad thing. In fact, given that we’re communicating with people who might not catch the full message (or be paying full attention), redundancy is often a logical thing to add to your language.
Lastly, if you want another 20 myths debunked (or another 20 minutes’ break from work), check out our Grammar Day mythbusting from 2010 and 2009.
[Update 03/04/2012: Another National Grammar Day means ten more myths, looking at matters such as each other, anyways, and I’m good.]
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 4, 2011 at 7:32 am
goofy
I forgot about national grammar day zomg! Let me add a few of my entries:
There’s nothing wrong with “which” heading a restrictive relative: http://bradshawofthefuture.blogspot.com/2009/08/that-which.html
There’s nothing wrong with “if I was” in a conditional clause: http://bradshawofthefuture.blogspot.com/2008/10/conditional-of-doom.html
March 4, 2011 at 7:57 am
Gabe
Thanks, goofy! Both are great points, and both are great posts. Readers, I recommend you read these too.
March 4, 2011 at 10:39 am
Borghild
I wish I was patient enough to write this kind of post for Norwegian.. It’s needed. Good job!
http://borghilds.blogspot.com/2011/03/grammatikken-og-jeg.html
March 4, 2011 at 10:52 am
Marjanne Pearson
For some reason, I’ve never found your blog until today, when @EditorMark tweeted about this article. I really appreciate your practical point-of-view. Back in the 1960s, I studied English as a language when I was preparing to teach elementary school. One teacher made a point of saying that grammar was usage, and usage became grammar.
Thank you very much!
March 4, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Elinor Dashwood
Great article. I grew up with a ‘talent’ for English and usually got A’s in school. So, I’ve been abit protective over the langauge but have learnt (with age) to lighten up – for two reasons: the first is that I now understand that the effect of communication is more important than the use of language. If you pay attention only to language, you lose the point. Secondly, living as I do in South Africa, I have seen so many people insulted, injured and otherwise excluded because of their inability to speak ‘grammatically correct’ English – that its a relief to hear your views.
March 4, 2011 at 2:03 pm
John
Gabe – looks like I spotted a grammar error in your article. You wrote:
“Non-literal literally is perfectly standard. This one’s a three-fer. Stan Carey, me, and Dominik Lukes all wrote posts . . . ”
Rather than use the objective pronoun “me” you should have used the subjective pronoun “I” instead as you, Stan and Dominik are the subject of the sentence. You wouldn’t say “Me wrote posts . . . ” would you?
March 4, 2011 at 3:33 pm
God
Why do you use “our” in “check out our Grammar Day mythbusting from 2010 and 2009” when there is only one of you? Multiple-personality disorder?
March 4, 2011 at 10:01 pm
John Mutford
Why is that you use the argument that certain grammatical uses have been around for hundreds of years to justify particular points, yet in the case of prepositions “three-and-a-half centuries of people” are wrong?
March 5, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Joseph Pendleton
It is funny how most “National X Days” are a cause for celebration for most groups, but it seems language folks see it as an occasion to poke each other in the eye. No matter.
The basic problem is that many linguistically adept folks like to make rules out of their own style guidelines. These ten “myths” are really not myths but style choices among many who are fairly well educated but not linguists. Some of them are silly, but others are fairly reasonable.
Using Black English, for example, in a professional setting, such as a written memo at a pharmaceutical company or in a report at a real estate company would be a cause for a good deal of derision and not just from the stuffy white folks. My own experience with my black students is that they tend to be far more judgmental about its use in writing than other groups. (I should mention that the majority of students in my grammar classes are black, and about half have distinct elements of Black English in their speech.)
So Gabe is correct that Black English is not lazy English, but it is not an effective choice for most written occasions. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably white and a sophomore in college.
“Ms.” is clearly a change for the better. I can remember my mother receiving mail addressed to “Mrs.” right before my father’s first and last name. That always struck me as disrespectful, but my mom took it in stride. The change to “Ms.” is both logical and makes it more difficult to be stupid in professional correspondence.
March 7, 2011 at 7:25 am
PEF Web-Mister
@John: that’s the 11th myth (that it’s an error to say “me and ___”).
@God: it’s the royal we. We (I) use it all the time.
@Mr Mutford: she didn’t call anyone’s usage wrong, but saying that sentences must never end with a preposition isn’t correct.
March 7, 2011 at 7:26 am
PEF Web-Mister
She? He.
March 7, 2011 at 7:52 am
Wilson
“It’s a good solution to the asymmetry that female titles depend on martial status and the male title does not.”
I heartily agree with the substance of this comment, but “martial” status? If that be the case, then perhaps that status needs be switched to “divorced” ASAP…
March 8, 2011 at 9:15 am
Daniel
John Mutford: <>
You’re comparing apples in oranges. The apples are centuries of people DOING something. The oranges are centuries of people SAYING you shouldn’t do something.
The whole point of descriptivism is that what matters is how people actually use language, not how anyone says language should be used. So if you have three and a half centuries of people saying you shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition while people (including some of those saying you shouldn’t!) end sentences with prepositions, then the descriptivist concludes that it is within the rules of English to end a sentence with a preposition.
On the other hand, if you have three and a half centuries of people telling you it’s okay to use “shall” as the future modal with first-person pronouns (i.e., “I shall go to the bank tomorrow morning”) but during those three and a half centuries no one actually does that, then the descriptivist concludes that doing so is not actually within the rules of English. (Yes, I realize that this example, unlike the ending-sentences-with-prepositions example in the previous paragraph, is not actually the case. But I think you see the point I’m getting at.)
March 12, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Kei$haFan4Evr
omgosh God, you’re funnier than i thought!
March 12, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Kei$haFan4Evr
PS
Some questions for God:
God, i know that i tend to frequently write “we love you” to friends and such then sign only my name. could i just include you with me in that statement? i mean, since you’re supposed to love everyone and all…
oh and is Gabe going to be damned to hell for not using the singular form of “our”? i mean, i don’t think Gabe was trying to include you in that statement like I would for “we love you.” although, I could see how you would feel threatened since Gabe was doing some mythbusting. but that’s not what his blog is about. please forgive him.
is there ice-cream in heaven?
March 30, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Improve English Grammar
So Gabe is correct that Black English is not lazy English, but it is not an effective choice for most written occasions. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably white and a sophomore in college.
_____________
Thank You
Bernard
September 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Bryce
Daniel, I’ve never hear anyone say, as you did, “apples in oranges”. I’ve only heard “apples and oranges”. It’s always something.