A recent Technician issue ran an open letter by Gabe DeCaro addressed to grammar police. This well-written column argued that strict grammar policing is bad because it promotes ad hominem logical fallacies, “perverts our beloved language for the sake of perpetuating … dogma” and frightens people from experimenting with language. These are good points, but are they truly fair of all grammar enthusiasts?
I work at NC State’s writing center, and nearly everyone whom I help says he or she wants me to check over grammar. As a proud proponent of prescriptive grammar rules, I feel that it is my duty to answer DeCaro’s concerns as well as to raise some points of my own. My hope is that both columns will be read together so as to allow readers to come to their own conclusions vis-a-vis grammar policing.
DeCaro’s first point is his strongest. The ad hominem logical fallacy involves arguing against a point by attempting to discredit the one making the said point. However, when one writes or speaks with poor grammar, he sounds uneducated, thus it is very difficult to take him seriously. Humans are imperfect; we allow our prejudices to influence our beliefs. If one perceives someone to be uneducated, then one is inclined to discount their ideas. This may be a heuristic — a cognitive shortcut, a way of narrowing the broad field of ideas. Those ideas that we perceive to be from unreliable sources are likely to be invalid ideas. This is not always the case, but it often works.
Moving on to DeCaro’s second point, I believe he must have a different understanding of the word perversion. He says that grammar policing perverts language because it prevents language from evolving to suit changing requirements for communication. Perversion, as I understand the definition, refers to a distortion of an original intention. According to this definition, it is the evolution of language that is a perversion of the original intention of words and syntax.
The idea that language evolves to suit its users is a nice thought, but in practice this would be a nightmare. If language changed to suit the changing social paradigms, then nothing written in the previous paradigm would be decipherable in the present paradigm. All that information would be lost. Thankfully, the English language has not changed very much since the 15th century.
It is almost a miracle that English has remained so static for so long because no governing body for the language exists. The French have l’Academie francaise (the French Academy), a board of 40 people devoted to the preservation of the French language from all external and internal influences. This organization was founded in the 17th century, and it has largely succeeded in fulfilling its motto of a l’immortalite (to immortality), as the language has weathered several internal revolutions and invasions by foreign powers without very much noticeable change. English has managed to preserve itself due to the efforts of scholars and academics who informally promote a standardized language.
DeCaro would say that it is bad that French has not changed, as it prevents the Francophone peoples from fully expressing themselves. Yet, language must have formal rules. If words or structures could just change meanings ad hoc, then everything would become nebulous. Language requires precision and specificity or else it ceases to be language. Linguistic anarchy would allow people to experiment with words, but communication would be reduced to charades.
Part of the problem is that grammar is so poorly taught in American public education. Even if students are taught the rules (which is becoming quite rare), they are not taught the “why” of the rules. Grammar was not invented by sadistic teachers as a means of punishing pupils. Grammar is one of mankind’s greatest tools. Grammar allows humans clearly and plainly to communicate with one another. Grammar made society possible, and it was society that allowed humanity to leave its natural state of savagery.
Pointing out instances of violations of grammar can be done for other reasons than ad hominem attacks. Sometimes grammar policing is merely an act of educating people so as to insure that mistakes are not repeated. I rarely point out instances of incorrect grammar — I typically just lump it because I realize no one really cares what I think. The exception is when I am attempting to educate someone (such as when people see me at the writing center or whenever someone asks me for help), and in these instances I am very polite and considerate. I suppose I am more of a grammar guru than a grammar policeman.
Pointing out others’ bad grammar is an act of gatekeeping. Without an “English Academy,” we must police ourselves so as to ensure that our language remains useful. I just ask that such policing is done politely and with the intention of educating rather than reprimanding. Also, it is important to keep in mind that, in the case of books and newspaper articles, often the errors are the result of editors rather than the authors.
George Orwell wrote, “The great weakness of English is its capacity for debasement. Just because it is so easy to use, it is easy to use badly. To write or even to speak English is not a science but an art … Whoever writes English is involved in a struggle that never lets up even for a sentence.” It is important to remember that it can be hard to write or speak well. No one uses perfect grammar all the time. I am guilty of mistakes; everyone is. But one should still strive for perfection. Therefore, it is a duty to politely show people where they have made errors so that they may learn better to use language, our most precious tool.
