1.3.3 Rules of English: The plurilithic view
Concept: Rules can be seen as ‘regularities’ describing ‘actual’ usage
From the perspective of linguistics, which describes language as it actually is rather than how some people want it to be, rules are the regular patterns which are found: (a) in the ‘communal’ usage of specific groups of people (e.g. in dialects); and (b) in the minds of individual users (part of their idiolects). Thus, according to a plurilithic view of English, there are different rules for different users and uses.
To see this in more detail, let’s take the expression of negation on English verbs. In ‘Standard English’ and some other varieties, the regularity is that the particle not (regularly contracted to n’t) is added to an auxiliary verb, or have and be as main verbs; quantifying words and phrases using any often follow. For example:
- I haven’t been anywhere.
- I don’t have anything.
In some unstandardised varieties of English, the regularity is that negation is expressed through the particle not and a second negative marker (with no instead of any) in quantifier position:
- I haven’t been nowhere.
- I don’t have nothing.
This rule is called negative concord, and it occurs across the USA (especially in African American English: Howe, 2005) and Great Britain (although it’s less common in the North than the South: Anderwald, 2005).
So there are two rules which capture the regularities of negation in communities of English users: one in which a single negative marker is used (e.g. in ‘Standard English’) and one in which negation is marked twice (e.g. in African American English). According to a ‘rules-as-regulation’ orientation, the second rule is ‘incorrect’ because it is ‘illogical’ (everyone knows that ‘two negatives equal a positive’!). This argument has been repeated for centuries, and is still made today, e.g. on the engVid website, which offers free English lessons: see Fig. 1.7. According to the engVid teacher Ronnie:
As an English learner it is important to understand slang, but you shouldn’t try to use incorrect grammar, especially in cases like this where it can make people think you mean the opposite of what you want to say! I’ll show you examples of some of the most common double negatives that English learners and native speakers use. You’ll learn how to correct these mistakes so that your English is clear and correct.
Notice how use of the negative concord rule is identified by Ronnie in the video as ‘stupid’ and ‘without class’ and viewers are told not to use it: this is quintessential regulation. Yet in many other languages, negative concord is the custom (in the ‘standard’ variety too). Take Spanish, for example:
- No he estado en ningúna parte (the translation of [1] and [3] above).
- No tengo nada (the translation of [2] and [4] above).
When the King of Spain, Jennifer López, Pope Francis and other Spanish native speakers say sentences like these, no-one would think to call them ‘stupid’, ‘without class’ or users of ‘incorrect grammar’. Furthermore, the negative concord rule was the norm in Old English (over a thousand years ago) and into Middle English, when the poet Chaucer could write sentences like the following, with four negative markers!
- He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde in al his lyf unto no maner wight
‘In his whole life he has never said anything wicked to anyone’
We all use grammatical rules, following the regularities we hear in the usage around us. Some rules have more social prestige than others, but to call those with less prestige ‘incorrect’ or ‘stupid’ is to impose a value judgement based on (stereotypes about) the user, rather than on logic or linguistic science.
In Unit 3 we’ll return to the different senses of rule as ‘regulation’ and ‘regularity’ and see how misunderstanding of the difference has led to a mismatch between the rules teachers teach for tests and the rules learners learn for use.
Reflection 1.2
The beliefs about ‘correct English’ challenged in this section are very strongly held by many people. The resilience of these beliefs makes it hard to appreciate that what is generally thought of as ‘incorrect’ usage may just be the use of alternative rules.
Reflect on how convincing you find the linguistic view of ‘correctness’ and let us know what you think in the discussion section at the bottom of the page.
Thank you for the information in this part of the course! I have to start by saying I got thorough 3 minutes of teacher Ronnie’s video on double negatives before I had to turn it off. I was genuinely shocked at her attack of artists and their lyrics and the kind of language she used to describe these. I have admittedly recommended to my students before to use YouTube as a tool for revising grammar, given that there’s a multitude of teachers offering lessons on there. I might think twice after watching this particular lesson….
As someone who has learned English in a quite prescriptive classroom environment (as I’m sure many of us have) and then later taught it the same way, I’m guilty of having taught that double negative are “incorrect” and that the McDonald’s slogan “I’m loving it” is “wrong” and you cannot use the stative verb ‘love’ in the continuous form. I no longer agree with these strict views and have taken a totally different approach in class now. It is still difficult, however, when you are teaching EAP, for instance. Does anyone have any experience with “correctness” inside or outside the classroom?
In my opinion, the linguistic view of ‘correctness’ presented in the section is quite convincing. The idea that what is often perceived as ‘incorrect’ language usage may simply be the application of alternative linguistic rules challenges traditional notions of language correctness. This perspective acknowledges the diversity and fluidity of language, highlighting that language is constantly evolving and shaped by various sociocultural factors. Therefore, understanding language correctness from a linguistic standpoint requires an appreciation of this complexity and a recognition of the validity of different linguistic forms and expressions.
Language depends on identity – who is using it, where, why, how, when and in what context, country, function, situation. Is the aim of a class to focus on fluency, accuracy, both or just for communication. There are rules of thumb for spoken and written English and these have been evolving over time.
I agree with what’s being said here – BUT I do wonder about the scope for expressing different ideas. It IS possible to say ‘I haven’t got nothing’ in ‘Standard English’ to mean ‘I have got something’. So, if someone says ‘I haven’t got nothing’ then I’d have to determine what they mean by the context and the way they use language generally, rather than the words of that phrase.
So, while neither is ‘correct’, there might be linguistic (as well as social) advantages to one form of English over another, maybe?
For me, I agree with the linguistic view of ‘correctness’ being espoused here. One of the features of language is creativity. If individuals can create expressions that are communicative in their ‘speech community’, it should not be seen as a deficit but as a sign of the dynamic nature of language.
although there are different grammatical rules that grade whether the English is right or wrong, it is important to understand that those phrases that appear to be wrong in grammar are not all wrong. These are variations that have been adapted over time and come basically from the conversations that we hear on a regular basis every day.
This led me to the countable and uncountable lesson. I used to understand food, fruit, and furniture as uncountable nouns, but later, I learnt that each item has alternative rules. I still find myself confused whenever ‘knowledge’ is brought up, whether to use it as singular or plural. From the linguistic perspective, ‘correctness’ could steer back to the uniformity of language whereas ‘idiolect’ helps evolve language further.
While there might be a point to prescriptive grammar, in that it makes a language seem regular and thus easier to learn, I always feel like it sets my students up for failure, as soon as they get to talk to native speakers, who all come from different backgrounds and whose different versions of English may vary a lot. If a student has been taught that there’s only one way to express something, they’ll struggle with actual real-life conversations.
Approaching these rules as a linguist, rather than as a prescriptivist, like the teacher in the video above, seems a lot more sensible, especially when it comes to English which is spoken all over the world and thus is bound to diversify into numerous different dialects, idiolects and sociolects, no matter what we as teachers say or do in our classrooms.
I understand that the world and the language are changing and they will never be the same, but to me, personally, the concept of “alternative rules” sounds like the concept of the “alternative universe” 🙂
For me, exposing learners to “alternative grammar” alongside the so called “prescriptive grammar” is equally important for one main reason: It will give them awareness and flexibility in communication.
They will encounter both scenarios in real life -although the they might encounter the alternatives even more, given the multilingual background of the English speakers- hence flexibility is key.
On the other hand, they need to be aware that there are times where prescriptive grammar is necessary, for instance, for IELTS or TOEFL test (although I hope these tests would less presciptive in the future).
I do the same. I try to expose my students to the “prescriptive grammar” as well as the “alternative grammar”because there is a time and place for both, I believe.
I don’t think anyone would see “he ain’t no teacher” and think it’s unclear. You could argue that it’s inappropriate for certain contexts but it’s not really an ambiguous sentence. Meanwhile native English speakers are using sentences like “I’m not not going to go” and “it’s not that I don’t not like it” – that’s three negatives in that last sentence. Does that make it negative again or positive and a half?
One other thing that Ronnie hasn’t considered is that “he ain’t no teacher” has a different nuance to “he isn’t a teacher” – one of them is emphasising that there’s no way he could be a teacher and the other is just stating that he is not a teacher. To say that using language like this is without class and stupid is…well, classist and racist at least. Is English only correct when it’s done by middle class white people?
When I’m asked if something is correct or not, I never answer by saying that ‘(xyz) is more correct’ but I say “we usually say” or “we’re more likely to say” because my use of English is not the end all be all and neither is the English that I grew up with. And in most cases, their attempt was understandable which meant that communication was achieved successfully, but they wanted to know how it would phrased appropriately for the context or in a way that would be more easily understood by the listener.
But at the end of the day, I spent two years working with someone whose native language was Vietnamese, we were working in a store in Japan, he was very experienced with Japanese but not as much with English. But he always talked to me in English and he understood a lot of what I said especially if I could explain it further for him. His English is in no way ‘gramatically correct’ and his pronunciation is very influenced by his native language, but it didn’t mean that we weren’t communicating successfully! So English doesn’t need to be ‘correct’ to be successfully communicated.
In this very specific case, we have to be aware of “Real English” and “Standard English”. My students wonder how double negatives are so common despite the fact that prescriptive grammar says they are wrong. In this case, what I try to transmit to them is that English, as any other language, has variations depending on many factors (some of which have already been mentioned here). Then, if my students have to sit an international exam, I have to warn them against using them. The debate should be whether international examinations have to start accepting these uses or not. Nevertheless, I focus on communication mainly and, then, accuracy. It’s like the problem with accents: British? American? Irish? Scottish? Is it really important? As long as communication happens in an effective manner…
To my mind, the correcteness view of English is not convincing when it comes to everyday communication, but it should not be left apart when it comes to academic or professional communication. That said, I think we English teachers should adopt a binary philosophy when it comes to teaching English. What I mean is that we should provide learners with opportunities to make these “grammatical mistakes” and actually teach them how to go about that by using resources like music, poetry, or theater plays. However, we should also show students that there is a more “correct” way to use English with the use of rules or regulations, and that, when they are to interact in academic or professional scenarios, this is the way they should do it.
I share your view on this. It is important that we as teachers emphasize to our learners that they (might) need to adapt their language to the situation in which they are using it. To have a discussion with a friend is very different to applying for a job, for example. And still, speaking or writing `incorrectly´ in a specific context is no end of the world. To be able to deliver the message is what counts.
Yet at schools we mostly test how well our learners know the rules. But I think these tests still have their place, right? But they should not define our teaching on the whole.
‘correctness’ is very easy to me.
As far as I understand others and I get answer to my question and the other part of conservation do understand me. Communication happens and we are good.
I think “correctness” depends on the context in which it is being used. English is a vast language with many different variants and usages, I think that what is correct in one aspect may be incorrect in another. I think it just depends on when it is used and in what way.
I’m a white, university-educated male and maybe that’s why I tend to focus more on the ‘rules’ of English especially when writing. But I also tend to use my knowledge of ‘correct’ English as a tool to show off and be very passive aggressive. And when I do write like this, I’m aware of my lack of respect and even contempt for the person I am writing to (to whom I am writing). At the same time, the more I try to write ‘perfect’ English, the more I tend to make mistakes: eg. ‘neither’ and ‘nor’ and ‘correct’ word order when using some adverbs (and I overuse adverbs when writing). And as a teacher, I don’t see any real need to insist on ‘neither … nor’ when ‘neither … or’ performs the same communicative function.
from my own experience learning english to be an english teacher in colombia I´ve discovered that the gap between these idealistic points of a “standard english” usually sets as a regularity between the professors and the students and it is always the common saying “your accent it’s your cv” or the fact that you dont talk every time in an ” academic way”. As much as I think that in colombia it might be true, I think that the sense of “correctness” implies that for every person it exists a different idealistic english that is based on their own experiences.
When teaching English, teachers should mention some of these rules which are not considered slangs to students to provide a natural outlook about the people who speak English. These rules may play a role in giving ideas to students like customs and people’s tendency to use their language which may result in students feeling comfortable in learning and speaking processes .
I think the linguistic view of ‘correctness’ is too strict that its restrains students from adapting the language with its all aspects. But I also think it benefits the language because it differentiates formal and informal language.
although there are many different variations within in the grammatical rules that determine whether or not the English variety is grammatically correct or incorrect, we must also consider the important aspect of understanding that those phrases that appear to sound wrong in grammar, are in fact not wrong because at all, because they are variations that have been adapted over time, from their idiolects and come naturally from the conversations that we engage in within everyday life!
The linguistic view of correctness as a flexible and context-dependent concept seems to me to be the most convincing. Language is a living entity that evolves with its speakers, and its primary purpose is to facilitate communication. Correctness should therefore not be rigidly defined by prescriptive rules, but should be adapted to reflect the dynamic nature of the language and its users. Bearing in mind that each individual has his/her own experiences and practices depending on his/her needs, although not limited to those aspects, in fact interactions with other speakers is a key factor in language usage. On the other hand, as a pre-service English teacher I have noticed how this idealistic and correct English (Standard English) is commonly supported by curricula taking away the dynamic nature of the language, moreover it is not only the grammatical regularities but also the pronunciation and accent where students have to change or imitate “correct English” because that is how a teacher should to speak.
From my perspective as a teacher, it is essential to address both standard grammar and real-life language use. While teaching grammar is crucial, it is equally important to explore the variations that occur in everyday communication. This idea can help students build a practical repertoire for interacting effectively as non-native speakers.
What a silly and uneducated video, bashing modern culture and Music, It is so Elitest and simply wrong, grammer chnages People create new words and new meanings. She is saying that those of whome use newer words are somehow lesser, It is entirely wrong.
Who is going to teach the foreign speaker of English that it’s ok to use a double negative? Unless they learnt English on the streets in an African American neighbourhood, it’s going to sound wrong.
I think that by having and trying to maintain a linguistic view of “correctness” is unattainable in today’s society, as well as it being confusing and damaging to a person’s language learning process and further to a native’s own use of language and identity.
It is unattainable, because of all of the different influencing factors that we have in today’s society compared to the society of when these so called standards were set. For example, the main difference is the use and adaptation of technology in today’s everyday life, and because not everyone uses language for the same reasons it leads to these so called ‘errors’ and unideal methods of communication to be made and expressed, but as I have mentioned previously this is all important for a speaker to learn and use, not only for self expression but further to create their own sense of self.
Ultimately the linguistic view of ‘correctness’ is simply used as a cudgel against minorities and vulnerable groups. It is no coinicidence that the epitome of ‘correctness’ comes from that of the elite.
An excellent quote from Milroy and Milroy (2012) on this topic is “Although discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, gender or social class is not now publicly acceptable, it appears that discrimination on linguistic grounds is publicly acceptable, even though linguistic differences may themselves be associated with ethnic, religious and class differences.”
Personally i think the linguistic view of ‘correctness’ should be made redundant, it serves no real value as there is no correct was to communicate with another person. As long as both the speaker and the listener in the interaction understand each other it does not matter whether the language or grammar they are using are ‘incorrect’, therefore the linguistic view of ‘correctness’ is highly unconvincing.