Was it grammar day on Twitter? April 14
Two grammar related blog posts found courtesy of Twitter today.
The first, a detailed indictment of Strunk and White’s Elements of Style in the Chronicle (in the free to all stuff). By a linguist. With details of a (presumably better) book about grammar at the bottom. At least one to check out, I think.
Geoffrey Pullam makes some sound arguments. But for those who are not familiar with the basic tenets of linguistics, it might seem odd. For linguists (and I agree with them) the whole point about a living language is that it is living. Thus the rules are only discernable by examining how people actually use the language to make meaning.
For me, the sociologist, I would say that this means that they are more social conventions than rules. Thus you can teach the social conventions, but those conventions also change. And some people defy those conventions and still communicate well and may even be lauded.
If you want to read more about linguistics and public debates about language, I highly recommend Deborah Cameron’s Verbal Hygiene. She demonstrates how some of the vociferous debates about language are really (or also) about other things — discipline, social cohesion, employment for copy writers, etc.
The second grammar post today is Three Grammar Rules You Can (And Should) Break. Directed at bloggers it takes on some of the big rules-that-are-really-social-conventions and gives you permission to treat them as you would asking your girlfriend’s father for permission to marry her. Sometimes makes sense. But use your judgement.
I liked both. But then I’m not a big fan of rules or rule-following at the best of times. Hope you enjoy them.
Emily Apr 15
I wonder if you’d enjoy Stephen Fry’s thoughts on language? He’s wholeheartedly with the linguists too!
Emily Apr 15
Oh, and here’s a link…
http://www.stephenfry.com/media/audio/109/series-2-episode-3–language/
lapazfarm Apr 15
I break those 3 rules all the time. After all, if the purpose of language is not simply communication, then what is it for? So, I will continue to boldly split me some infinitives. And I will likely continue my penchant for starting sentences with conjunctions, too.
Meg Apr 15
I’m totally for the fluid living language idea, I’ve been very happy to support the idea that words don’t have to always be spelled the same myself. Yeah, I’m a bad speller.
As for the 3 rules, when I ask Girl to write anything formal, I enforce them, but otherwise – why bother?
Andrea Apr 15
The last grammar book we read here was Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
shaun Apr 25
Someone sent me a link to that article recently. As one who has taught writing, writes often, and has to improve the writing of others, I have a lot of sympathy for S&W. I get the most leaden writing filled with passive constructions. And as a reader, I find excessive adverbs a great annoyance. Look at great stylists, and they use nouns and verbs, not adverbs and adjectives, to get their points across.
It’s worth noting that the title of the book is Elements of *Style*, not Elements of Grammar. A smooth, pleasing, engaging — preferably personally distinctive — writing style is difficult to codify. The examples of S&Ws bad advice may not make grammatical sense, but they capture something of the bad writing I have seen from students and authors over the years. If somewhere students are strenuously avoiding passive constructions, that’s a place I’ve never been.
Teresa, your post made me laugh. But sometimes split infinitives really are an example of a misplaced modifier that would be happier elsewhere.