Usage
Contents |
Chapter Summary
This was written collaboratively by Group Two.
Style, Grammar and Choice
Some grammatical rules from the eighteenth-century are still controversial in their use and are often ignorned. Other rules are linguistically imperative to adhere to. Another set of rules may be followed, or ignored, depending on the desired effect (See #Optional Rules). It's hard to determine what rules are "right" or "wrong" because this argument is not easily settled. Clarity, and its importance, is generally thought to be a priority in prose. "Correctness", on the other hand, is subject to as vast an array of differing thoughts and opinions as there are people to have them. Since everyone has a different opinion on what is considered "correct" grammar, it is important to mention that as long as we have around the same level of knowledge on the subject then some compromises can be made. Persons who claim responsibility for the language of others should be sensitive to these varying ideas. (For more, see #Precision)
Two Views of Grammatical Regulation
Williams points out two opposing parties:
- Liberal grammarians who believe Standard English was created, and is used, as a tool of oppression.
- Conservative grammarians who believe Standard English evolved due to a form of 'linguistic Darwinism' where efficient and logical language survives.
Williams claims that these viewpoints pose a false dilemma, and debunks them both:
Standard English was not invented as a tool to discriminate and repress the socially and economically disadvantaged, although it is sometimes used as such. In fact, such discrimination has been dated back long before Standard English even came about and for hundreds of years, Englishmen have arbitrarily insulted one another's dialects and therefore each other's intellect. A standard form was created, instead, that we might have one common method to communicate, by which all English speakers can understand one another.
As for the conservative arguments, many of today’s Standard English rules are not based on linguistic logic. The misuse of “incorrect” forms is therefore not a reflection of an unintelligent mind, but simply a failure to abide by arbitrary judgments of what is socially accepted as “correct”.
A Brief History of Good English
As early as the eighth century there were social distinctions between the dialects of English used. The Venerable Bede, an Anglo-Saxon historian, wrote of a Northumbrian thane named Imma who lost a battle and tried to pass himself off as a simple foot soldier. His captors, however, spoke Mercian, a dialect of Old English different from Imma's, and were thus able to recognize the thane's superior social standing.
In 1066, the Norman Invasion changed what counted as upper-class speech for the next two centuries, permanently affecting the English language. After the Norman Conquest, Latin was the written word of choice for scholars and theologians, and later Norman French. By the middle of the twelfth century, John of Salisbury noted it was fashionable to use French words in English conversation, thus indicating that some English conversations were more fashionable than others.
By the fourteenth century, English had become the spoken language of choice. However, since the vocabulary for these matters had either disappeared or never came into being, English writers wrote about things with words borrowed from Latin, and particularly French.
The first written form of early modern English that could be called standard developed as a result of clerks hailing from various regions of England. Southern English became more prestigious than Northern English, as the English court was located near London. London was, at the time, the center of commercial affairs and literary production, as well as the seat of government.
By the end of the sixteenth century, there had developed a form of early modern English – London English with a few northern-isms – that constituted the basis of our modern standard English. Latin and French had disappeared from institutional affairs, though Latin and French words were still used to refer to institutional concepts. The first dictionaries and grammars appeared, written with the aim to help students learn Latin.
Not until the eighteenth century did English grammarians begin to write about the differences between dialects of the educated and those spoken by their inferiors. As grammars became more popular and competitive, grammarians had to invent increasingly fine rules of usage in order to distinguish their volume from others.
This led to much of the confusing grammatical #Folklore that still exists today, and this tradition carries on in the form of what Williams calls the Pop Grammarian and #Bete Noires, those newly invented and/or highly controversial grammatical issues still being debated today.
Varieties of Rules
English writers are best served if they fervently educate themselves about the rules of usage, so they may know which rules are worth observing and on which occasions to enforce them. Careful writers must be confident enough to ignore arbitrary rules when necessary to maintain stylistic flexibility, despite the criticism they may receive from pretentious, arbitrary grammarians. For more of Williams' commentary on this, see #Precision.
According to Williams, there are three main kinds of rules:
- Linguistic facts. No native English speaker even thinks about these, and he does not cover it further. In addition, this rule naturally comes out of the speaker’s mouth correctly and rarely thinks twice about form. One example is that articles precede nouns.
- Rules that distinguish standard from non-standard English usage. These are called #Real Rules. Generally, these rules go unnoticed when followed, but are highly visible when violated.
- Rules that some grammarians try to impose even on those who use standard English. These can be divided into #Folklore, #Optional Rules, and #Bete Noire.
Ignoring the first one, Williams divides these last two rules into the four previously mentioned categories:
Real Rules
These are rules whose violations generally brand one as a user of nonstandard English. These include:
- Double negatives: I don't got no answer.
- Nonstandard verb forms: I knowed i would have to stay late today
- Double comparatives: This way home is more quicker.
- Some adjectives used for adverbs: I did real good on my essay.
- Pleonastic subjects: This here bread tastes bad.
- Some incorrect pronouns: She and me are going to the baseball game.
- Some subject-verb disagreements: They was ready to go to class
Folklore
This group of rules are not rules at all, but are bits of linguistic folklore. Those who choose to enforce these as rules are misinformed, according to Williams. They are only advisable to follow under certain noted circumstances, or in cases of extreme formality. They include:
- Never begin a sentence with because. Alternatively, never begin a sentence with a preposition.
- Never begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction such as and or but.
- When referring to an inanimate referent, use the relative pronoun that and not which for restrictive clauses. Only use which for nonrestrictive clauses. The second part of this rule is the only one with any historical or linguistic accuracy.
- Don't use this or which to refer to an entire clause. Occasionally, following this rule can avoid ambiguity, but it's not hard and fast.
- Use each other to refer to two, one another to refer to three or more.
- Use between with two, among with three or more. Only the second part of this is true.
- Use fewer with nouns that you can count, less with quantities you cannot. While using fewer before uncountable singular nouns is ungrammatical, less can be used before countable plural nouns.
- Use 'due to' meaning because of only in a phrase that modifies a noun, never a verb.
Optional Rules
These rules are the opposite of #Real Rules. That is, most readers will not notice their violation as being nonstandard, but obedience to these rules signals a certain level of formality which may or may not be desirable.
- “Never split an infinitive.”
- to quickly leave
- to always want
- to easily excel
- to not fail a class
- The famous Star Trek saying, “To boldly go where no man has gone before...”
- “Use shall as the first person simple future, will for the second and third person simple future; use will to mean strong intention in the person, shall for the second and third person.”
- I will escort you to your car (incorrect)
- I shall escort you to your car (correct)
- “Always use whom as the object of a verb or a preposition”
- To who it may concern. (incorrect)
- To whom it may concern. (correct)
- “Never end a sentence with a preposition”
- I have been given a bat to hit his car with (incorrect)
- I have been given a bat with which I am to hit his car. (correct)
- “Do not use whose as the possessive pronoun for an inanimate referent.”
- The car whose tire was flat. (incorrect)
- The car which had a flat tire. (correct)
- “Use one as a generalized pronoun instead of you”
- You should not talk about someone behind their back (incorrect)
- One should not talk about someone behind their back (correct)
- “Do not refer to one with he or his; repeat one”
- One should not talk unless he is spoken to (incorrect)
- One should not talk unless one is spoken to (correct)
- “When expressing a contrary-to-fact statement, use the subjunctive form of the verb”
- This is not correct, but if it was... (incorrect)
- This is not correct, but if it were... (correct)
Bete Noire
This category of rules could also be named erroneous. There is no logical explanation for these rules, but to violate them triggers very intense emotional reactions in those grammarians fighting to keep the English language “pure”. These include:
- Never using like for as or as if
- After different use from, never to or than
- Never use hopefully for I hope
- Do not modify word that are absolute, such as perfect, unique, final, or complete with very, rather, quite, etc.
- Never use finalize to mean finish, complete, end.
- Never use irregardless for regardless.
Precision
In this section, Williams makes several points about why we attempt to regulate the English language using the aforementioned rules.
The impulse to regulate and "fix" languages is a long-standing tradition in every literate culture. People fear that when language changes, we will lose touch with traditional literature, give up on all literary standards, etc. Grammarians are finding new 'barbarisms' that pop up every day in the evolution of our language. One example is the usage of between you and I, a recent #Bete Noire. In reality, this and many other so-called errors have been in usage every day for hundreds of years with no sign of decline in linguistic values.
Another reason why many may attempt to regulate English is that they have invested much effort into learning Standard English, and after such an investment are not willing to accept the language of those who did not submit themselves to such discipline.
According to Williams, writers want to be grammatically correct, but we risk losing both style and clarity at the cost of obeying linguistic folklore. The serious matter of clumsy and imprecise prose goes unnoticed in the battlefields of trivia. And so he defines excellence in prose thus: Communicating effectively, elegantly, through prose that is readable, precise and forceful.
He disclaims that he cannot offer broad generalizations or global principles by which to judge prose, and states that the social utility of idiosyncratic rules is in their idiosyncrasy - that is, they become useful to a writer who knows what rules to follow and when to follow (or break) them.
Williams writes that most of choose among these items not because we are defending the English language or because we want to protect it, but rather that we are developing our own personal style and therefor resulting in the problem with not following them. He emphasizes that each writer should and does develop their own personal style, and it is in defending this style (whether it be formal or plain), and that we ought not to scorn either style when it is informed and thoughtful.
Williams ends his discourse on the note that the writers whose prose we take most seriously set the global standard, but that an improvement in quality of even our everyday writing will improve our quality of life.
The book is closed with a quote from Alfred North Whitehead:
"Finally, there should grow the most austere of all mental qualities; I mean the sense for style. It is an aesthetic sense, based on admiration for the direct attainment of a foreseen end, simply and without waste. Style in art, style in literature, style in science, style in logic, style in practical execution have fundamentally the same aesthetic qualities, namely, attainment and restraint. The love of a subject in itself and for itself, where it is not the sleepy pleasure of pacing a mental quarter-deck, is the love of style as manifested in that study."
Application to Twitter
The grammatical rules apply to twitter writing in many ways. Twitter allows only 140 characters so writers need to be concise, direct, and choose their rules carefully. Correct usage of rules can be important in Twitter, but it is often acceptable to break these.
Language evolves based on how the speakers and writers of the language use it. The boundaries that Twitter has have affected the way that writers must use language. For example, writers on Twitter will often shorten words or replace them with numbers or symbols because of the 140 character limit. Oftentimes internet slang will also be included in tweets.
Twitter's 140 character limit makes the shortening of words very common, for example:
Seriously = srsly
Because = cuz
Some people will shorten many words so more can be said. However, some writers may chose to do this for reasons other than limited characters. Writers also used internet slang rather than just shortening words. For example, a writer may write "LOL" or "LMAO" to convey amusement. Some writers shorten words by using symbol such as "=" and emoticons to convey information.
When writing to friends or fans on Twitter, it is acceptable to ignore rules such as "do not begin a sentence with 'because.'" Writing "Because of the way I was treated yesterday, I'm leaving" works just as well as "I'm leaving because of the way I was treated yesterday." Folklore rules prefer the second sentence, but the first can leave a bigger impact on readers. Due to the character restriction of Twitter, it may be advisable to begin a sentence with "and" if they lack the room to create a second clause within a message. It is also often too formal to use phrases such as, "one should" or, "I shall".
Bete Noire "nonrules" can be used in Twitter for finding the most efficient way of expressing views in a professional manner within a limited space. A professional background audience will be more likely to take tweets seriously if they follow these guidelines. However, Twitter audiences may not be from professional backgrounds, so it is acceptable to break these rules to appropriately reach the audience. To express an opinion on a bad movie to a non-professional audience, it is acceptable to modify absolute words such as "perfect" and "unique." For instance, one could say "the movie was VERY unique" for the sake of sarcasm. Rules are often not determined by Twitter as it is the needs of the specific audience the writer is trying to address. The only thing Twitter directly determines is the limit on characters, but this affects the rule choices that writers make.
The necessity of real rules also depends on the formality of the tweets. If, for instance, writers are using Twitter and would like to make a quick and effective point without sounding uppity, they may throw this rule out. One could say, "I don't got no job, but I stay fly." This may come across as uneducated since the "never use double negatives" rule was broken. However, one may still say "don't got no job" instead of "don't have a job," understanding how it comes across, but choose to write this anyway to make a stronger statement in the limited space. The "incorrect" statement gains more attention, and thus more emphasis , especially with a character limit.
What is perhaps more important to Twitter than these rules is precision, which is quite flexible in Twitter. There are calculated deletions of letters in words, specific choices of symbols to represent certain emotions and feelings, as well as choices with rule use. With such limited space, it is important to carefully choose how a tweet is written to get the most effective results.
