I consider myself to be more of a ‘descriptivist’ language lover than a downright pedant, but still I remember my horror when, as a trainee teacher many years ago, I was informed that I could not tell children that incorrect English use was ‘wrong’. I had to use the term ‘non-standard’. There is a not-so-subtle difference, however, between ‘non-standard’ English and just plain ‘wrong’ English. Non-standard English takes into account the use of slang and local dialect words, as well as the contexts in which it can be used, whereas phrases such as ‘I could care less’, ‘For all intensive purposes’ and, unbelievably, ‘It’s a doggy dog world’ are just plain wrong!
There. I’ve said it! And this brings me to the wonderful ‘Word Crimes’ video from ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic, of which there has been much commentary recently.
I’ve lost count of the number of friends and acquaintances who have taken the trouble to send this link to me, knowing that I have the right balance of humour mixed with outrage at certain ‘word crimes’ to appreciate the spirit in which it was meant.
But there are those, mainly from the descriptivist linguists’ camp, who cannot appreciate the humour. One article in particular, written by Stan Carey, echoes what many linguists of this persuasion believe: this video reinforces the message that those who don’t write properly must be thick, and this isn’t fair.
http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/the-problem-with-weird-als-word-crimes/
As with other writers who share this point-of-view, Stan Carey doesn’t like to apply the label ‘mistake’ to even the most basic and annoying errors. He argues that these are examples of non-standard language, which is no less valuable than standard English.
I agree with him on many points. Some grammar rules are ridiculous and have no merit other than the fact that they’re based on Latin grammar, the preserve of the privileged old school. I choose to ‘break’ many such rules in my own writing, liberally beginning my sentences with co-ordinating conjunctions and splitting my infinitives. (If you’re a real pedant reading this, I’ll apologise now but I don’t really mean it.) But that’s the difference: I know enough to make choices. I appreciate it when someone takes the trouble to let me know I’ve made a mistake (as long as they’re polite) because I can learn from it. Why should anyone be denied that opportunity?
Along with those linguists who argue that there are no mistakes, Stan Carey writes perfect, error-free blogs; I’d guess that he takes exceptional care when writing for an official purpose. These most vocal supporters of the idea that ‘language should adapt according to its users’ have the knowledge to ensure their writing is beyond reproach but, it would seem, have no problem with the rest of us being deprived of this advantage.
Anyone who knows me or follows me on social media will know that I’m not too pedantic or judgemental. However, I will abandon a book or article that is peppered with comma splices or the misuse of basic vocabulary, such as confusion over the use of ‘less’ and ‘fewer’. I can’t help it: it annoys me because it suggests a lack of consideration for readers. To see such errors on business websites and promotional literature, as well as on everyday letters and emails, leads me to believe – perhaps unfairly – that the people behind the company don’t really care.
And I’m not alone in thinking this. 98% of the business people I have interviewed through various channels claim that they will disregard messages from potential service providers because of basic grammar, spelling and punctuation errors.
Learning the basics of grammar and spelling, such as when to use ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ or understanding the difference between ‘less’ and ‘fewer’ really isn’t that difficult, and most of us would like the security of knowing that we are not making basic mistakes. Telling us it doesn’t matter is untrue and somewhat patronising: it suggests that our writing isn’t that important or that we’re incapable of improving it.
Over the years, respected dictionaries have allowed words to change their meanings. For example, ‘infer’ can now mean ‘imply’ and ‘literally’ can mean ‘figuratively’. The argument is that as long as enough language users are unable to make the distinction and continue to apply terms incorrectly, the incorrect version can become correct.
Why not provide the means to help users correct their mistakes, rather than pandering to ignorance?
Yes, yes. I know that language evolves to suit those using it and always has done. I’d hate to see our local dialects disappear into a fog of standard English, but that’s the difference between speech and spoken language. Spoken language is more impulsive and instinctive and we all, whether or not we like to admit it, code change depending on who we’re speaking to. Writing should be the same. If you’re writing quickly for an informal context, by all means break the rules. But you have to know the rules to break them, so why not equip everyone with the knowledge to get it right when it really matters?
No one ever seriously suggests that numbers can mean what we want them to mean. If, suddenly, young people began incorrectly adding six and six to make eleven, there would not be a group of maths experts declaring: ‘They’re not wrong: it’s what it means to them. Hey, lighten up guys: eleven is the new twelve!’ So why do so many language experts suggest we should do this with words?
It would seem that there are still plenty of us who don’t agree with what we view as mistakes. Enough of us see these errors and wince, many feeling the need to point them out in the hope that users will improve. Don’t those of us who want to maintain certain standards count in the ‘Language should adapt to suit users’ scheme?
And one thing’s for sure: those advocating the use of language that was, until recently, considered incorrect will not be insisting that their children fill in their university applications with deliberate ‘non-standard’ vocabulary.
As for the ‘word crimes’ featured in the video, I know many perfectly sane men and women who hanker after improved literacy standards, online and in the business world, but most are forgiving of some of the so-called crimes outlined in the video. I suspect that ‘Weird Al’, for all his claims of being a pedant, feels exactly the same. He is merely saying, in a more entertaining way, what so many of us have been trying to get others to understand: there is a standard and we should maintain it.
Language should not continue to ‘mean what we want it to mean’ because that destroys the whole purpose of it. Language is how we communicate and understand one another. In today’s multi-cultural society, we should be ensuring that our language is easier for others to understand, not more confusing. Surely that’s a more sensible argument for how language should adapt to suit its users?