National Grammar Day
Students, imagine I was teaching you astronomy and I instructed you that our sun and planets revolve around the Earth. Or consider I was teaching you history and I advocated the oppression of the lower class because I believed its constituents socially and economically incapable of functioning autonomously in society. Or imagine even that I was teaching you biology, and instructed you that certain races of people were inherently physically and intellectually superior to others. At best, you’d think me ignorant and bigoted, at worst, stupid and racist.
Unfortunately, many pop-grammarians and even educators happily perpetuate the unscientific, incorrect, and prejudiced belief (as unscientific as the Ptolemaic conception of the relationship of heavenly bodies, as incorrect as a class of people’s ability based upon its economic disadvantage, and as prejudiced as the idea of inherent racial superiority) that certain grammars are better, purer, more acceptable and palatable than others. Ideas like these that give rise to such inanities as National Gammar Day, sponsored by the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar.
Nathan Bierma, at the Chicago Tribune, weighs in on the dubious festivities and admits his ambivalence: “Don’t get carried away on National Grammar Day”. Arnold Zwicky, linguist at Stanford, is a bit more pointed, though: “National (OMIGOD) Grammar Day”.
So what’s the controversy? Well, it has to do with the distinction between grammar and usage and the surrounding language myths. These myths began many centuries ago and persist to this day and vex the uniformed usage-police (who curiously give Shakespeare a pass) and hurt the usage-violators who suffer under the scornful red pens of the former.
Well, what’s grammar? And what’s usage? Objectively, grammar is the machine that makes capable, drives, and accounts for human speech. Usage is a list of prescribed rules of written English and has to do with mere matters of taste and preference, for example, that one should not split infinitives. In her book Ancient Rhetorics for Modern Students, ASU rhetoric professor Sharon Crowley argues that “usage rules are the conventions [. . .] Americans use to discriminate against one another” (282).
For the real story about how language and how it works, PBS’s site Do You Speak American?, born from Robert MacNeil’s documentary of the same name, and inspired by his previous work on The Story of English, is a rich resource for earnest, curious, amateur linguists and for ill-informed, pretentious, pietistic pop-grammarians alike. A good place to start is with Edward Finegan who describes the differences between prescriptivism and descriptivism in “What is Correct Language?”.
Other contributions to the site include John Algeo’s chapter from the book Language Myths (I have a copy in my room) in which he tackles the idea of language decay, “Americans are Ruining English”, and Walt Wolfram’s article in which he describes processes of linguistic evolution, “The Truth About Change”. And if you don’t believe these linguists, who can doubt trustworthy NPR contributor Geoff Nunberg who discusses the “the decline of grammar” in “Language Diplomacy”.
I encourage you to begin to really examine your own assumptions about the relationship between language and society by further investigating language prestige and prejudice at the PBS site. Then check out Peter Patrick’s Linguistic Human Rights page, particularly his Ten Linguistic Axioms (and see also his page on African American English).
Happy National Grammar Day!