The internet is full of grammar guides presented to the public and to prospective students by university admissions departments and writing centers. They give tips on how to write correctly, offering broad, and often conflicting, information on what constitutes good grammar. All the while, they profess that following these rules will improve the strength, legibility, clarity, and quality of your writing. But where do these tips come from, and will they actually improve your writing? We looked more in-depth at some prescriptive rules put forth by academic institutions around the country.
2. Irregardless and other “made-up words”
New words enter the English language all the time, irregardless of whether or not you notice them popping up. Language is like a forest, new words constantly springing up, some surviving to become trees and some dying off with the first winter, and old words dying off or burning away in a forest fire. Some new words get a lot of attention, such as the word I used above, “irregardless”. As many would say, it is incorrect to say irregardless because the prefix “ir-” and suffix “-less” both already carry the meaning “not” or “with” and therefore cancel each other out (Urban Dictionary). According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, irregardless is a word which came to popularity in the early 20th century, and while it remains a marker of casual speech rather than formal writing, it is indeed a word in use to this day. So, while many claim that it is not a word and that it is improper to use in writing and speech, it really is a word (Merriam Webster). Even Google Ngrams show the spike of use beginning in the early 1900s and continuing through the late 1900s before beginning to slowly drop (Google Ngrams). This is likely due to the claim that irregardless is not a true word and should not be used in place of “regardless”.
To further explain the point that language is constantly in flux and new words enter all the time with or without question, I turn to Shakespeare. As many are probably aware, Shakespeare has quite the reputation for having invented nearly 1700 words in his writing primarily by changing verbs into nouns. Some of these words were fully accepted into the English language, and some never caught on. How often do you find yourself speaking of a person's addiction, your own amazement at the size of a bloodstained blanket or the countless bumps which compromised the integrity of your car's wheels? Or how laughable a situation was? These are only a few examples that, without knowing were invented by shakespeare, could have been used without a second's thought. But then, what makes these words any more acceptable than other new words such as irregardless? Is it simply a matter of conflicting prefixes and suffixes or is there something more? According to a Lexicographer or the Oxford English Dictionary, a words path into the dictionary is primarily driven by its frequency of use. So, any new word can find its way into the dictionary with time and use (When Does ‘Wrong’). The stigmatization of that word is entirely dependent on those who police language. They determine which words are not grammatical and why. So, the next time you use a word, whether it’s “irregardless”, “impactful”, or “bloodstained” and are told it is not grammatical for any number of reasons, remember, that every word, at some point in its history, was a made-up word. With time and use, your made-up or stigmatized word could be just as regular as any other word.
Urban dictionary definition: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irregardless
Merriam Webster Definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
Google Ngram of “irregardless”: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=irregardless&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cirregardless%3B%2Cc0
By: Ani Harrison
3. Avoiding Slang
According to the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one should be careful in their use of slang when writing an application essay. They write “…you don’t want to be chatty to the point of making them think you only speak slang, either. Your audience may not know what “I kicked that lame-o to the curb for dissing my research project” means. Keep it casual enough to be easy to follow, but formal enough to be respectful of the audience’s intelligence.” This sentiment is not unique to UNC - many essay writing websites, SAT prep courses, and other academic authorities stressing the importance of maintaining a balance between writing in one’s individual voice while also writing within the “academic standard.”
But what are the motivations behind this rule? For as long as there has been English, there has been a “standard” or a “correct” English and a stigmatized, incorrect form. From the very first English grammar book, Joseph Priestly’s “The Rudiments of English Grammar” from 1761, the use of slang in academic writing has been highly stigmatized. Priestly writes “As to a public Academy, invested with authority to ascertain the use of words, which is a project that some persons are very sanguine in their expectations from, I think it not only unsuitable to the genius of a free nation, but in itself ill calculated to reform and fix a language. We need make no doubt but that the best forms of speech will, in time, establish themselves by their own superior excellence: and, in all controversies, it is better to wait the decisions of time, which are slow and sure…” (xix). While at first glance Priestly seems to be arguing a shockingly descriptive approach to language, his ideas on “the best forms of speech” are still found in language attitudes to this day. The idea that the “best” language will prevail and must therefore be the language of academia carries throughout Priestly’s work and continues into the UNC writing guide.
Returning to UNC’s example of slang in an academic essay; “I kicked that lame-o to the curb for dissing my research project.” Obviously UNC is regarding “lame-o” as a slang term, and while it does seem informal in comparison with the rest of the content in the sentence its meaning is lost on very few readers. If students are supposed to be focusing on making sure their ‘voice’ comes through in the piece, slang can be a highly effective tool. However, this places the burden on the student being able to walk the fine line between “standard english” and their own dialect, despite the ability of the reader to understand the content contained within the essay.
By: Kira Hazelbaker
4. Language Formality
We are told in high school that writing a college admissions essay is one of the most important things we should complete. We are told that our admissions essay needs to be the perfect length (500 words), if using semi colons they must be used correctly, avoid using the words “it” or “this” or “that”, not use passive voice, know when to underline, italicize, hyphen, dash and sound like ourself (without trying too hard). As English is always changing does this mean our language standardization is changing as well? These are all things according to the Harvard College Writing Center.
In education an form of communication has mediated and helped change writing style and that is email communication between staff and students. The distinctions between formal writing style has become blurred to a looser more informal style with the rise of text-based communications. One educator suggests that email resembles speech, as writing is becoming more ‘speech-like’. As a student who emails professors often, I think I am being judged by the way I effectively communicate over an email. If my email is poorly written or if what I wrote was in an informal style. In one study a couple of linguistic features were tested to see how distinctive they were in in email mediated communication. These would include altering spelling (‘night) acronyms (like BTW) misspellings (its vs it’s) etc.
What was uncovered was that email mediated communication shows politeness, through verbal markers such as please and ‘thank you’. By using such indicators it can lead to a more polite response. In a study specifically done about staff-student email communication in the, US evidence suggests that in-class training sessions can enhance students ability to write effective emails to academic staff (this would include subject lines, opening greetings, sign-offs). The conclusion of this study is that the students who had received the training use a more professional formatting structure, indicating that guidance or training does avoid different expectations about emailing. So what does this say about language formality? While there may be no one authority, as a student it’s important to remember how our writing language is seen and perceived by our peers. It is important to consider some of these grammar guides but do they do not warrant complete authority.
Baron, N. 2002. “Who Sets Email Style? Prescriptivism, Coping Strategies, and Democratizing Communication Access.” The Information Society 18 (5): 403–413.
By: Nicole Riggin
5. A survey of the usage of I and me
I am working on “ENGLISH RULE: There are very specific ways to use subject pronouns, such as I, you, he, she, it, we, they, and object pronouns, such as me, him, her, us and them (and sometimes you and it).” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-hansen-shaevitz/pesky-grammatical-mistake_b_4399996.html )
In order to find out that if the rule is necessary during our daily life I decided to do a short survey around the people on campus. The people who were being surveyed were mainly professors from math department and linguistic department. And the students I surveyed were mostly English language learner from IEP and AUAP, and students that are in TESOL program.
I asked them, which sentence they will say for their daily life.
Here are two sentences below:
- John and I went to the soccer game.
- Me and John went to the soccer game.
And below was the data I collected:
During my short survey, the people were mainly told me that the grammar they use for academic writing is really different from the grammar they will use for daily life. One of the linguistic professor told me that most of the American will say “Me and John went to the soccer game.” even though they will write “John and I went to the soccer game” for their academic writing.
When I asked them if it’s necessary to use the correct form “John and I ….” during their daily speech. Most of the answers I got from them were referring that was unnecessary. It’s just sound more formal and educational.
By: Lilian Hsiao
6. Passive Voice
Nearly anybody who has been a student in an English class for long enough has heard about the scourge that is passive voice. Hearing the way that passive voice is often talked about, would lead somebody to believe that passive voice is a cardinal sin of written English and should never be used under any circumstance. That mindset has permeated many levels of the English authoritative hierarchy, largely incited by Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style, which was first published in 1920. Prolific author Stephen King has written that passive voice is for “timid writers” who are unsure of what they want to say, grounding much of his opinion in Strunk and White’s work. While his thoughts on passive voice may be somewhat exaggerated in his writing on the topic, the mindset behind them is indicative of the larger thoughts of the English community: writers should avoid using passive voice.
However, there’s great confusion at times over a very critical portion of the passive voice debate. What exactly is passive voice anyways? One common misconception is that passive voice is simply anytime a version of to be is used. That’s not the case. Passive voice is when the object is moved to the front of a sentence, and usually is accompanied by a form of the verb to be. For example, the sentence “A speeding driver hit my car” is in active voice, while “My car was hit by a speeding driver” is in passive. In both sentences, my car is the object, but in the passive sentence it comes before the subject of the sentence which actually does the hitting. People who argue against the use of passive voice state that the “doer” of a sentence should always be put in the front. However, there are valid reasons for putting the object at the start of a sentence. For instance, scientific writing almost always puts the object at the start of a sentence because the subject performing the action, in many cases a scientist, is not as important as the result.
There is nothing explicitly wrong with foregrounding the object, especially if it is done for a purpose. One prominent example is whenever something happens to somebody or something notable. For example, when JFK was assassinated, the New York Times wrote that “Kennedy is Killed by Sniper,” which is a passive construction. The importance of the object, President Kennedy, more than warrants foregrounding him. Avoiding passive voice in this instance would cause the sentence and its impact to be greatly changed.
One of the greatest arguments against passive voice is that the “by phrase” can grammatically be omitted, potentially leading to confusion. To use the earlier example, “My car was hit by a speeding driver” is a different sentence than “My car was hit.” While in most cases it is best to avoid that type of sentence, if the subject is truly unknown, foregrounding the object is completely reasonable. If I have no idea who hit my car, there’s nothing misleading or confusing about saying that “My car was hit.”
Passive voice has been around for as long as the written language, and has specifically been part of scientific writing since at least the early 1900s. One final main argument against passive voice surrounds whether or not passive voice is more difficult to understand. Data backing up that claim is difficult to come by, and contradicts one of the primary ways in which language functions. If something no longer works in a language, it gets removed. This means that if passive voice truly is more difficult to understand, it would’ve faded out of the use long before now. So the next time that somebody tells you that you should avoid passive voice, not only should you be able to double check whether or not you are using passive voice, you should also be able to explain why you are using passive voice. Rules are made to be broken.
By: Justin Jamieson
7. Parallelism
Many university writing guides feature a section on parallelism, or parallel structure. While there are differences in precisely what parallelism is, all of the guides agree that when listing items, each item should have identical grammatical structure (i.e. be parallel). Consider this example from Evergreen State College’s Writing Center:
- “Ellen likes hiking, the rodeo, and to take afternoon naps.”
While little detail is given, the first sentence is taken to be incorrect because it violates parallelism. To be specific, the sentence coordinates (or, basically, lists) items of three different grammatical categories: a present participial verb phrase (hiking), a noun phrase (the rodeo), and an infinitival verb phrase (to take afternoon naps). Instead, Evergreen suggests:
- “Ellen likes hiking, attending the rodeo, and taking afternoon naps.”
This second sentence maintains parallelism by coordinating only similar verb phrases. This is a pretty straight forward idea, but parallelism can actually get a lot murkier.
There is conflicting information on what needs to be parallel and where. According to Purdue University, coordinated clauses must be parallel in voice, that is, all of the clauses must be in either active or passive voice. For example, they consider it incorrect to write:
- “The salesman expected [that he would present his product at the meeting], [that there would be time for him to show his slide presentation], and [that questions would be asked by prospective buyers].”
because the last coordinated clause is in passive voice (questions would be asked, as opposed to buyers would ask questions) while the other clauses are in active voice. On the other hand, Indiana University of Pennsylvania contradicts some sources by suggesting that “single words should be balanced with single words.” This seemingly would prohibit sentence (2) above, which is correct by Evergreen standards, because it coordinates the single word hiking with two multi-word phrases.
Just as there are a variety of definitions for parallelism, there are various reasons given for adhering to it. Several guides present parallelism as something that must simply be done. Purdue sums up this idea in the succinct command, “do not mix forms.” As examples of non-parallel phrases, they cite glaringly ungrammatical sentences like:
- “The dictionary can be used to find these: word meanings, pronunciations, correct spellings, and looking up irregular verbs.”
More whimsically, other guides contend that parallelism will improve how your writing is received. Margaret L. Brenner of Towson University goes so far as to state that it “will help with 1) economy 2) clarity 3) equality 4) delight.” But do these reasons really hold?
While parallelism perhaps eliminates sentences that native speakers of Standard American English might find awkward, like (5), it isn’t necessary to be a good writer. As a matter of fact, good writers have been breaking parallelism for hundreds of years. Consider this excerpt from Shakespeare’s 1609 play, Coriolanus:
- “Can you [...] think to front his revenges with the easy groans of old women, the virginal palms of your daughters, or with the palsied intercession of such a decayed dotant as you seem to be?”
This sentence can be interpreted as either coordinating two noun phrases (the easy groans…, the virginal palms…) and a prepositional phrase (with the palsied intercession…), or two prepositional phrases (with the easy groans…, with the palsied intercession…) and a noun phrase (the virginal palms…). However, it’s doubtful that making these parallel by inserting with in front of the virginal palms, or removing with from with the palsied intercession, would greatly affect the clarity or tone of the sentence. And even in (5), which feels more ‘wrong’ than (6), the meaning of the sentence is still clear.
By: Dylan Blossom
8. Conclusion
As we have seen, language changes in many way. Whether it’s in the form of new words and slang, levels of formality or grammatical constructions such as me versus I, passives, and parallel grammatical topics. These changes are either accepted without much resistance or, not so much. The reasons to contest change vary among people who dictate grammar, but often it’s a matter of maintaining the beauty of language by connecting to our Latin background or by maintaining parallel grammatical structures or avoiding certain repetitions or forms like the passive. It’s important, however, to remember that language change despite these influences is important and a natural part of language growth. So, while it may be useful to know what it means to write a sentence in the passive and how to create an active counterpart, or that the word “regardless” is more ‘correct’ than “irregardless”, or even that it is ‘more’ correct to say “Ellen likes hiking, attending the rodeo, and taking naps” rather than “Ellen likes hiking, rodeo, and taking naps”, it may not always be necessary to avoid these constructions, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment