A Note on “Proper” English Grammar

Language is fluid and ever-evolving, and any effort to standardize it is doomed to failure—but that does not stop people from trying. In many nations, there are academies tasked with attempting to assure language “purity.” For example, in Jerusalem, the Hebrew academy has deemed the proper word for “telephone” to be dud-si’ah (which means, “conversation device”), and tabetet (“thing for viewing”) for television. But let me know how many Israelis you can find who prefer these terms to telefon and televisia.  There are similar academies demanding linguistic purity in France, Spain and many other countries. And again, they are all doomed to failure.

Beginning as early as the sixteenth century, there has been a series of more than nine hundred grammars of English informing us of how we need to speak our language. Among the most influential of these in the United States we can cite A New English Grammar for Schools by Thomas Wadleigh Harvey (1868) and An English Grammar by William Malone Baskervill and James Witt Sewell (1895).

All these volumes followed a practice linguists now term “prescriptive” grammar. That is, they tell us the correct way to speak or write. Needless to say, in the view of these authors, the only way to speak “correct” English is to emulate the wealthiest, urban, white, and often, northeastern elites. Since the end of WW2, there has been a tendency to move the center of “proper” American pronunciation to the midwest and west, with the CBS newscaster Walter Chronkite’s accent often claimed to be some sort of ideal. Pronunciation and style by rural and southern populations need not be considered, and as for ethnic populations such as the descendants of slaves—well, who would imagine that their English was anything but inferior?

Academically acceptable English has a number of quirks that render it less utile in conversation and literature. It is a rule-bound system, and many of those rules result from the decisions of the likes of Baskervill, Sewell and Harvey’s reliance on Latin grammar as some sort of ideal to be imposed on English. So, for example, it is a commonplace in school English that one should not end a sentence with a preposition. This is indeed a characteristic of Latin, but as a multitude of examples can attest, it is not true of English, neither then nor now.

This led to a story which is probably apocryphal, but relevent to our discussion today. There are many accounts of the contentious relationship in Parliament between Lady Astor and Winston Churchill. One of these oft told tales says that Lady Astor criticized Churchill for ending a sentence with a preposition, to which Churchill supposedly replied, “Madam, that is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put!”

Whether the story is true or not, the grammatical lesson most certainly is. In English, it is natural, and correct, to end sentences with prepositions.

Now, let’s be clear that there is unquestionably utility in using some sort of standardized form of the language. That uniformity allows diverse populations to effectively communicate. We might refer to this as “school English” or “standard English.” Many would use the term “proper English,” but of course that gives it a sanction it does not really deserve. Of course, when we say “sanction” do we mean permitted or forbidden? In “proper” English, it could go either way! Similar considertions govern language in other countries. Italy, for example, uses the Roman dialect throughout the country, taught in their elementary education, to ensure that Italians can find a way to understand each other even when their home dialects might be difficult for others to comprehend.

But here’s a point rarely contemplated by those advocating school English—hardly anyone really speaks it! While some may come closer than others, the only people one is likely to encounter who attempt it will be called “pedants” or “stuffed shirts” behind their backs. When I write for academic publication, of course I employ this school-type English. But when I speak, or write on social media, I’m perfectly happy to employ regional or colloquial terminology.

While I’m on this topic, let me digress just a bit and comment on English spelling. As I write this, there are many stories of school systems denigrating the study of foreign languages in favor of so-called STEM topics. But if we’re looking for ways to save school children time, we could accomplish that goal so much more effectively by eliminating historical spelling in English in favor of a phonetic system. Consider how much time we waste teaching children to spell words with “gh” and “ch” which no longer use those phonemes! Believe it or not, there is no need for “Spelling Bees” in countries where Spanish (and Hebrew!) are native.

Returning to the main topic, this leads to ideas about language which became more common in the twentieth century and now dominate the science of linguistics. Understanding that we cannot dictate language usage, and in fact that betrays the natural tendency of language to evolve, linguists now, by and large, prefer to define themselves by the term “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive.” We observe how people use their language, document their grammar and spelling, and refrain from using judgmental terms such as “proper.” This allows us to collect data and understand how language varies across ethnic, economic, and geographic lines. It also allows us to investigate dialects, regional customs, and do so with respect.

This article was occasioned by a poster on Faceboook who wrote, “Petty annoyances of the day (in order of their importance): 1. Using “I” instead of “Me,” and this applies to EVERY English-speaking country on earth. 2. Using “data” as a singular. 3. Using “impact” as a verb.” Every one of these “annoyances” is belied by the principles of descriptive linguistics. The reason why these supposed errors are not errors at all is because they have followed the standard route of acceptability by speakers of the language. The current state of the English language is that thousands of things just like this were once regarded as erroneous by pedants are now (presently?) considered correct by the current generation of pedants.

Accepting that the colloquial language will vary from some academic ideal allows us to facilitate communication and understand our fellow humans rather than being classified as “jerks.” Or worse.

As in all things, YMMV. As for me, this notion that only academic English is acceptable is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.