The idea that our language is going to the dogs is a pedant\u2019s meme that goes back at least as far as Seneca.<\/strong><\/p>\n Perhaps you had a teacher (or a boss or an editor) with a prescriptivist bent, someone who holds certain principles of language use to be immutable laws, such as \u2018Never start a sentence with And or But\u2019 or \u2018Always use a comma after \u201cwhich\u201d\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n We all have a few of these peeves rattling around our heads, but it is the mark of the true prescriptivist to turn them into in an ideology.<\/p>\n Society\u2019s inevitable failure to adhere to such \u2018rules\u2019 with total compliance is taken by the prescriptivist as evidence of declining standards, a society that is traducing the language of Shakespeare in its race to the bottom (See The Daily Mail for more of this sort of thing; for more background to the conflict, see Proper English by Ronald Wardaugh, or The Language Wars by Henry Hitchings).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Peeves are not rules<\/strong><\/p>\n Unfortunately, the gulf between those who preach about language in this top-down way and those who actually dedicate their lives to understanding how language works continues to yawn.<\/p>\n Prescriptivists carry around with them a ragbag of unexamined diktats which are social rather than linguistic in force: not \u2018knowing\u2019 that it\u2019s poor form to verb a noun or split an infinitive, for instance, is taken as evidence of a second-class mind or of someone who attended the wrong school.<\/p>\n But these are not rules, so much as superstitions or shibboleths. These can be considered as grammar rules you can ignore.<\/p>\n A lot of the problem, argues linguist Steven Pinker in his new book, The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person\u2019s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century, is a misunderstanding about what we mean by a \u2018rule\u2019 here.<\/p>\n The rules which describe language use are not bestowed from on high by some unimpeachable source such as the OED, but are rather \u2018tacit conventions\u2019 or principles of use agreed by a community of language users.<\/p>\n These rules can change as our needs change, but this is not to say that absolutely anything goes.<\/p>\n Anyone writing or commenting on this blog, for instance, is tacitly observing all sorts of more specialised \u2018rules\u2019 that make it easier for others to process their words \u2013 conventions of punctuation, for instance, or agreed meanings of specialised terms.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Rules that don\u2019t work<\/strong><\/p>\n But while it\u2019s useful to know what the current standards are, and to follow guidelines that help make our writing clearer and more graceful, that doesn\u2019t mean that we have to obey every half-baked maxim that comes our way just because someone feels strongly about it (especially if they haven\u2019t ever really stopped to think about what they\u2019re saying).<\/p>\n Many of the \u2018rules\u2019 the purists cling to simply don\u2019t stand up to scrutiny. Often, the rule has been ignored by the most respected writers in the language for centuries, for instance.<\/p>\n Or the rule is based on a principle of grammar that makes sense in describing a different language (notoriously, Latin).<\/p>\n Sometimes the purists break the rule in their own writing. And sometimes, the rule is just demonstrably false: words denounced as barbaric neologisms turn out to have been in use for centuries, for instance.<\/p>\n Here then are nine such grammar rules you can ignore, together with some ammunition to counter your inner pedant…<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Clients still occasionally tell us off when we use \u2018they\/their\u2019 to mean \u2018he or she\/his or her\u2019 or when referring back to words such as \u2018everyone\u2019, \u2018anyone\u2019 or \u2018someone\u2019, as in this example from The Economist Style Guide: \u2018We can\u2019t afford to squander anyone\u2019s talents, whatever colour their skin is.\u2019 \u2018Confusion of subject and verb!\u2019 they cry.<\/p>\n Not so. \u2018Singular they\u2019 as it\u2019s called (though \u2018singular\u2019 is misleading here) has been sanctioned by centuries of usage as a neat way of dealing with instances where the gender or number of the person\/people isn\u2019t known or doesn\u2019t need to be specified.<\/p>\n It\u2019s long been accepted by such respected authorities as The Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam-Webster\u2019s Dictionary of Usage, and is used enthusiastically by Shakespeare, Jane Austen and Mark Twain.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also particularly useful in a variety of online contexts such as social media profiles. On Facebook you now have the option of choosing something other than male or female for the gender bit of your profile.<\/p>\n If you choose this, your friends will see messages like, \u2018Wish them a happy birthday.\u2019<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This rule, and other variants, relates to theories about when to use \u2018that\u2019 or \u2018which\u2019 with certain types of clause. The so-called \u2018rule\u2019 is that \u2018which\u2019 is used for non-restrictive clauses and \u2018that\u2019 with restrictive clauses.<\/p>\n What\u2019s the difference? A restrictive clause helps define the meaning of the subject and cannot be omitted, while the non-restrictive clause just adds supplementary information and could be left out without impacting on the sentence\u2019s meaning:<\/p>\n Restrictive: \u2018The course that I want to go on next week costs \u00a3500.’<\/p>\n Non-restrictive: ‘The course, which I want to go on next week, costs \u00a3500.’<\/p>\n The rule is half sound. While it would be odd to say, \u2018The course, that I want to go on next week, costs \u00a3500,\u2019 there\u2019s really no reason why we couldn\u2019t say, \u2018The course which I want to go on next week costs \u00a3500.’<\/p>\n Comments Pinker:<\/p>\n Even when ‘which’ isn’t mandatory, great writers have been using it for centuries, as in the King James Bible’s ‘Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s’.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Peevers love to peeve about nouns becoming verbs \u2013 \u2018friending\u2019, \u2018sunsetting\u2019, \u2018evidencing\u2019, \u2018greenlighting\u2019 and all the rest. <Insert your own bugbears here.><\/p>\n But as Steven Pinker pointed out in The Language Instinct, verbing has been \u2018part of English grammar for centuries; it is one of the processes that make English English.\u2019<\/p>\n In Richard II Shakespeare writes, \u2018Grace me no grace, nor uncle me no uncle.’ The bard was also the first to use \u2018dog\u2019 as a verb. Other common hates such as \u2018impacting\u2019 and \u2018tasking\u2019 turn out to be hundreds of years old (17th and 16th century respectively).<\/p>\n According to The Economist\u2019s Johnson blog: \u2018Verbing happens. You can be an early adopter or (like The Economist) more conservative, but it\u2019s going to happen regardless.’<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2018This rule is simple and easy enough to follow,\u2019 comments Merriam-Webster\u2019s Concise Dictionary of English Usage. \u2018It has only one fault \u2013 it is not accurate for all usage.\u2019<\/p>\n As so often, the rule over-simplifies the reality. While we would want all want to say \u2018less gravel\u2019 rather than \u2018fewer gravel\u2019, try substituting \u2018fewer\u2019 for \u2018less\u2019 in the Bacharach and David song, One Less Bell to Answer: \u2018One fewer bell to answer, one fewer egg to fry. One fewer man to pick up after… I should be happy but all I do is cry.\u2019<\/p>\n Ditto, \u2018That\u2019s one fewer thing on my to-do list\u2019, \u2018Answer the question in 20 words or fewer\u2019, \u2018I weighed fewer than five pounds when I was born\u2019. As Pinker notes, \u2018”Less” is perfectly natural with a singular count noun, as in “one less car” and “one less thing to worry about”.\u2019<\/p>\n In fact, Merriam-Webster notes that \u2018less\u2019 has been used with count nouns since the time of King Alfred \u2013 that is, \u2018for just about as long as there has been a written English language.\u2019 It advises writers to \u2018be guided by your ear\u2019 rather than stick to a rigid rule.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2018You can split infinitives,\u2019 say the Plain English Campaign. \u2018So you can say \u201cto boldly go\u201d.\u2019 Indeed, these days you will struggle to find any style guide or self-appointed language maven that is prepared to argue for this rule, which originates in a confusion of Latin and English grammar.<\/p>\n The split infinitive has been ignored by our most celebrated writers for ever, and insisting on using it now not only often sounds affected but can actually alter or obscure meaning.<\/p>\n Compare \u2018I want to really interrogate this client brief\u2019 with \u2018I want really to interrogate this client brief.\u2019 Or compare \u2018The goal is to at least double conversions this quarter\u2019 with \u2018The goal is at least to double conversions this quarter.\u2019<\/p>\n <\/p>\n If we were to tell off all the writers who have ever broken this rule, there\u2019d be no end of it: this post cites examples of sentence fragments from JM Coetzee, Dickens and HL Mencken, highly respected writers all.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s all that advertising copy. And the Bible, of course, which ends: \u2018Amen.\u2019<\/p>\n The idea stems from a confusion of the concepts of sentence completeness and textual coherence. Meaning in writing is conveyed across and between all the sentences and paragraphs of a whole text, so individual sentences don\u2019t have to map slavishly to complete thoughts.<\/p>\n There are lots of good reasons to opt sometimes for an \u2018incomplete\u2019 sentence (one that doesn\u2019t have the standard subject-verb-object pattern, say) \u2013 style, rhetoric, economy and clarity among them (there are two such incomplete sentences in the previous para, by the way).<\/p>\n \u2018There is a widespread belief that [\u2026] complete SENTENCES are signs of “complete”, well-ordered THOUGHTS (and that incomplete, fragmentary sentences are signs of incomplete, disordered thoughts),’ wrote linguist Arnold Zwicky on Language Log.<\/p>\n \u2018The underpinning belief is that the superficial syntactic form of sentences is a direct reflection of the structure of the thoughts these sentences convey. This is a very silly idea.\u2019<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This \u2018rule\u2019 \u2013 frequently taught in primary school \u2013 is really a sub-rule of the one above.<\/p>\n \u2018There is nothing wrong with beginning a sentence with a conjunction,\u2019 says Pinker. \u2018\u201dAnd\u201d, \u201cbut\u201d and \u201cso\u201d are indispensable in linking individual sentences into a coherent passage, and they may be used to begin a sentence whenever the clauses being connected are too long or complicated to fit comfortably into a single mega sentence.\u2019<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u2018You can end a sentence with a preposition,\u2019 say the Plain English Campaign. \u2018In fact, it is something we should stand up for.\u2019<\/p>\n The story that Churchill once said something like, \u2018This is pedantry up with which I will not put\u2019 is almost certainly a myth. But what lies behind this supposed bon mot is a purist ban on what are called clause-final prepositions.<\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t take long to see the problems with such a \u2018rule\u2019. Can you imagine De Niro snarling: \u2018At whom are you looking?\u2019 or this \u2018improvement\u2019 on Shakespeare: \u2018We are such stuff as on which dreams are made.\u2019<\/p>\n Sometimes it makes sense \u2013 or just sounds better \u2013 to move the preposition away from the end but, as always, a crass rule is no substitute for thinking carefully about what you\u2019re trying to say and finding the best way to say it.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I think I\u2019ve probably banged on enough about this one already. Don\u2019t agree? Try looking it up first.<\/p>\n Final word to Steve Pinker:<\/p>\n The easiest way to distinguish a legitimate rule of usage from a grandmother\u2019s tale is unbelievably simple: look it up. Consult a modern usage guide or a dictionary with usage notes.<\/p>\n Many people, particularly sticklers, are under the impression that every usage myth ever loosed on the world by a self-proclaimed purist will be backed up by the major dictionaries and manuals.<\/p>\n In fact, these reference works, with their careful attention to history, literature and actual usage, are the most adamant debunkers of grammatical nonsense.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n