Note: I've updated this a bit since I first wrote it in August 2018.
A lot of linguists and language teachers seem to practice what I call linguistic anarchy, the notion that, when it comes to language, pretty much anything goes. They seem to think that grammar is whatever speakers of a language decide it is and that words mean whatever people want them to mean. While they correctly believe that languages change over time, they wrongly think that those changes should be free to come about as a result of people using the language incorrectly. I've long said "vocabulary is what we say; grammar is how we say it". Grammar is a tool; but, like all tools, it must be used correctly.
For example, let’s look at English: many of us would say that a “word” like irregardless is wrong because it produces a double negative (in which the negatives cancel each other out and become a positive, just like in algebra). So, irregardless really means not regardless or with regard. The correct word to use in this case is either irrespective or simply regardless. Irregardless is a longtime error based on people not understanding that the word they want is irrespective. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:
“Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that ‘there is no such word.’ There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.”
Yet, people still insist on using it (because they're likely confusing it with irrespective, which has a similar meaning) and linguistic anarchists say it’s okay. I disagree. Words have meaning and that meaning can be derived from the elements of those words. For example, we take a word like regard and add prefixes or suffixes to add meaning. Thus, to negate regard, we add the suffix less, to say without regard. By adding the prefix ir (not), we’re negating regardless. Thus, instead of without regard, we’re really saying not without regard, which is the same as saying regard.
Thankfully, even Merriam-Webster’s dictionary hasn’t yet succumbed to accepting the validity of irregardless; but, in time, it might eventually do so. Dictionaries have long ceased to be prescriptive and have often chosen instead to accept what is essentially linguistic anarchy: words mean whatever people want them to mean. Likewise, so-called “style guides” (often used by newspapers and other media), e.g. the Chicago Manual of Style or The Elements of Style, seem to make up things as they go along - again, based solely on what people are doing with language.
There are rules that are, at best, questionable. I remember as a child in primary school being taught “i before e except after c”. Well, yeah, but what about all those English words that are correctly spelled e before i and there is no c in those words? For example, the popular meme says “I before e except after c except when you run a feisty heist on a weird, beige, foreign neighbor”. But this wasn’t really a grammar rule as it was actually a “rule” used since the 19th century to remember how to spell words with the ie or ei combination of letters in it. But, as is often the case in English, there are numerous exceptions - so many, in fact, that there is really no value in teaching the i before e "rule".
Grammar matters! Grammar is the structure of a language, how a language works. Without it, language becomes mere gibberish; in fact, it is structure (what we call grammar) that differentiates language from mere gibberish. Now, that isn’t to say that every grammar “rule” is valid. Some of the so-called “rules” are just people’s preferences. For example, the pronoun he was used for many years as a universal pronoun (applying to male and female). But the way this came about was dubious at best. Ann Fisher insisted on its use in her 1745 grammar book instead of what we might call the singular they, which itself goes back before Geoffrey Chaucer centuries earlier. Subsequently, early editions of the highly-regarded Fowler’s A Dictionary of Modern English Usage also promoted universal he. However, there is no rational argument to be made for using the masculine pronoun when the gender of the subject or object is unknown, particularly today when doing so has become offensive to many. Singular they, which again predates Geoffrey Chaucer, remains a valid pronoun choice when the gender of the subject or object is unknown or unimportant.
At one time, it was a fad in England to try to impose Latin grammar on English words. Or, rather, they tried to use Latin (as well as Greek and Hebrew) grammar to explain how English works. The result was that we have long-taught "rules" such as “never end a sentence with a preposition”. This works fine in Latin, but not so well in English. Because of how English actually works, because of the structure of English, there is no reason why a sentence can’t end in a preposition.
But here’s the thing: English is not a pure language by any means: it has a mix of Germanic, Celtic, and Norman (among others) influences. We don’t merely borrow words from other languages, we - according to author James Nicoll - “pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary” (the full quote is “We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary”). It should be understood that, again according to James Nicoll, “The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore”. That doesn't, however, change the structure of English. Grammar doesn't change just because we add new vocabulary.
So, is there a place for prescriptivism? Should there be rules by which users of English use the language? I believe so. Again, grammar is the structure of a language, how a language works. We need to adhere to that structure if we are to be said to be using language. Without grammar, without the structure of the language, without a standard for how the language works, language devolves into gibberish or, at the very least, unintelligible as what a word or phrase or sentence means to one person can mean something entirely different to someone else. We need to have a commonly-understood, commonly-accepted structure of a language if that language is to be something intelligible, something more than mere gibberish.
Sure, languages change over time. I understand that. I accept that as a universal truth. But the issue for me is how languages change. Very often, the changes that come to be accepted are the result of people accepting what were initially improper uses of language. I can imagine English-speaking people in the 17th and 18th century vociferously objecting to using you as anything but a second-person plural pronoun. But as ye, thee, thou, and thine fell out of use, you and your are all that was left and became the only second-person pronouns - though Americans in the southern United States of America remedied that somewhat by creating y’all (a corruption of ye all) as the second-person plural pronoun. Likewise, I cringe when I hear people say irregardless when they mean regardless or irrespective. Likewise, I cringe when people use literally when they mean figuratively. Even worse for me is when people say they feel an opinion instead of think it. To that one, I respond “Wow! You feel it? What exactly is that emotion or physical sensation?”
I think that linguists and language teachers (among others) need to do more to help preserve the structure of languages instead of taking an anything goes attitude that I refer to as linguistic anarchy. As I said earlier, there’s no valid reason for using he as a universal pronoun when singular they more than adequately served the purpose. However, we should resist attempts to change language in the name of political correctness as some try to do with their insistence on creating new pronouns. We should also refuse to accept incorrect uses of language, like irregardless or using literally when we mean figuratively or feel when we mean think. Just because something is in common use, doesn’t make it correct use. A lot of English-language learners find English difficult enough without having to also deal with native speakers incorrectly using the language.
So, yes, even though languages do change over time, I think there is a place for prescriptivism.
Comments