# How do you define "grammatical correctness"?



## Francobritannocolombien

This post is a spin-off of the thread entitled "By foot / on foot" in this forum. In that discussion, a few opinions were expressed to the effect that it is possible for the majority of native speakers of a language to be "wrong". 

I asked a few questions which, admittedly, were rather rhetorical, but I am interested in hearing what other people have to say if I ask them seriously:
What criteria do you use to determine what is grammatically "correct" or "incorrect"?
Is it possible for the majority of native speakers to be wrong? why? how is the norm established? Once most users of the language end up using a nonstandard word or structure to express a certain concept, should it or should it not become the new standard? An example I took in the "by foot/on foot" thread was "se souvenir de" in French. The standard form used to be "il me souvient" (because of the original meaning of "sous-venir"). Should we still accept that as the standard form? Should we label as 'incorrect' the personal form "je me souviens"? as I am sure many people did when it first appeared?

Anxious to read what others have to say.


----------



## chifladoporlosidiomas

If your language is governed by a regulatory group, such as French, you rely on them. In English, on the other hand, in speaking, just do as you feel. People will undoubtedly understand you, and there's no way to disprove you because there's no concrete set of rules saying that you can't say one thing but you can say the other. But, usually just do what most people do. Anyways, this might be "out of the scope of the forum", so, check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology.


----------



## Natalie Mondor

My view as a language teacher is to remember that there are different levels of language for different situations: with your friends, another for older relatives, another for the office, and so on. The notion of correctness is a function of how language is used and with whom. As an example, when I say the person who, rather than the person that (as is common now in the US), I am not just using the so-called "more" correct form, I am making a statement (that may or may not be perceived by my listener) about my level of education and social milieu.


----------



## Chimel

chifladoporlosidiomas said:


> In English, on the other hand, in speaking, just do as you feel. People will undoubtedly understand you, and there's no way to disprove you because there's no concrete set of rules saying that you can't say one thing but you can say the other.


Is this not going a little bit too far?

Suppose you teach English and a pupil says "I have 15 years and I live here since 2 years", translating literally from his mother tongue, are you going to accept it because "people will undoubtedly understand it"? Are you going to tell him "just do as you feel"?

Of course, you're going to tell me that it's not what most people say. Right, but what are "most people"? From which percentage is an "uncorrectness" (from the standard grammatical point of view) acceptable? Am I supposed, as an English teacher (which I am not...), to check every time on Google, for instance, in order to see if there is a sufficient percentage op speakers using an "ungrammatical" form?

It's not easy to teach French or German grammar, as there are so many rules, but teaching English grammar isn't much easier as there are so few...


----------



## Outsider

Francobritannocolombien said:


> What criteria do you use to determine what is grammatically "correct" or "incorrect"?
> Is it possible for the majority of native speakers to be wrong? why? how is the norm established? Once most users of the language end up using a nonstandard word or structure to express a certain concept, should it or should it not become the new standard? An example I took in the "by foot/on foot" thread was "se souvenir de" in French. The standard form used to be "il me souvient" (because of the original meaning of "sous-venir"). Should we still accept that as the standard form? Should we label as 'incorrect' the personal form "je me souviens"? as I am sure many people did when it first appeared?


We can appeal to all manner of authorities, statistics, or guesstimates to define what's correct -- we do all the time, and in general questioners accept those arguments. But I think the honest answer that it's ultimately a subjective judgement call.


----------



## sokol

Outsider said:


> We can appeal to all manner of authorities, statistics, or guesstimates to define what's correct -- we do all the time, and in general questioners accept those arguments. But I think the honest answer *that it's ultimately a subjective judgement call*.


(My emphasis.)

I can only agree with that.

Of course, in class it will always be the teacher "deciding" grammatical correctness, but linguistically there exist many constructions extensively used even by educated native speakers which would be considered "incorrect" by classical, prescriptive grammar.

But how could one claim rightfully that the use of educated native speakers should or could be considered "incorrect"?
One such construction would be English "to try AND do" (considered incorrect by some) vs. "to try TO do".
You can hear "to try AND do" all the time in TV broadcasts and films, it is used by educated speakers, and it is still considered incorrect by some (certainly would be considered by the vast majority of English language teachers in Austria).

Linguists also are divided about how correctness should be evaluated; but many linguists already agree that native speaker _judgements_ should play an important role in evaluating "correctness".
(This of course still would and could not rule out subjectivity - even if only "naked" statistical results would be applied: even statistics are shaped and influenced by the scientist, as has been proven many times.)

Of course, the fact of comprehensibility alone would never be enough: so it would not suffice to say that there's no danger of a misunderstanding, thus it is "correct": that would be nonsensical.
Also, the fact of non-violation of any grammar rule still might not be enough: some phrases and constructions (even though grammatically correct, technically speaking) always will have to be considered as idiomatically incorrect, as no native speaker ever would use this.
And then of course traditional prescriptive grammar also is no solution (if it were then language would have to remain stable over centuries, and the daily use even of educated native speakers would have to be considered as grammatically wrong).

So there is really no way around the (subjective) native speaker judgement to evaluate correctness.


----------



## Chimel

Outsider said:


> We can appeal to all manner of authorities, statistics, or guesstimates to define what's correct -- we do all the time, and in general questioners accept those arguments. But I think the honest answer that it's ultimately a subjective judgement call.


I also fully agree with this statement as it does not turn down any form of (grammatical, linguistic...) authority, but considers it as one relevant argument among others.

I think you may compare it in a sense with an artistic judgement: nobody can really prove by A + B that a symphony by Mozart has a greater artistic value than the latest hit song, but somehow there is a consensus to consider that it _is_ so. And a subjective judgement that relies on a large consensus _tends_ to objectivity - without being truly objective...


----------



## se16teddy

Chimel said:


> And a subjective judgement that relies on a large consensus _tends_ to objectivity - without being truly objective...


A consensus of the ignorant proves nothing. 

The most important aspect of correctness - the most objective aspect - is surely that the audience must understand what the speaker or author is trying to say, or must otherwise be influenced as the speaker or writer is trying to influence them. 

Other, more subjective issues - such as whether to say _it is I_ or _it is me_ - are a matter of personal preference. Of course, if you are trying to impress someone you are best advised to identify and follow that person's preference.  Ultimately, these issues are a matter of linguistic etiquette - like balancing peas on the back of your fork rather than shovelling them up in the spoon of the fork like the plebs.

There is a place for the codification of correctness, for example in newspaper style guides, which tend to be a combination of hints for effective communication, and personal preferences.


----------



## Outsider

se16teddy said:


> A consensus of the ignorant proves nothing.


Native speakers can hardly be described as 'ignorant' of their own language! 



se16teddy said:


> The most important aspect of correctness - the most objective aspect - is surely that the audience must understand what the speaker or author is trying to say, or must otherwise be influenced as the speaker or writer is trying to influence them.


While I agree with the high value you place on clarity, I disagree that correctness can be reduced to it. Sometimes, difficulty is what is valued. Or precision. Or a number of other values.

Being understood isn't always the main goal in language. Much poetry is more concerned with inspiring than with communicating. On the other hand, I'd bet we've all had the experience of using language correctly, even plainly and clearly, and still not being understood, due to other miscommunications.


----------



## miguel89

Regarding grammatical correctness, I agree with this definition


> but many linguists already agree that native speaker judgements should play an important role in evaluating "correctness".





> The most important aspect of correctness - the most objective aspect - is surely that the audience must understand what the speaker or author is trying to say, or must otherwise be influenced as the speaker or writer is trying to influence them.


I understand Tarzan's speech, yet we can hardly say that he speaks correctly from a grammatical point of view


----------



## Phil-Olly

I think this raises a fundamental issue, namely that we now appear to be so afraid of being labelled 'prescriptive' that many of us equivocate when it comes to what is 'correct' English, and turn to common usage, possibly too often.

Certainly we cite the existence of daft so-called rules - like never to split an infinitive, never to start a sentence with 'and', and never to end a sentence with a preposition.  But there remain certain core rules of grammar and syntax (not to mention punctuation), which are worth being defended, not least because they often reflect some sort of rational which can be useful when teaching English to non-native speakers.

Nevertheless, in this forum we see questions posed about the correctness of phrases like 'between you and I' which provoke contributions like 'well, personally, I always say "between you and I" ' as if this member's constant misuse of the language somehow validates it.

I'm afraid I come firmly down on the side of the respondent who says 'well, you are wrong!'


----------



## Kumpel

Phil-Olly said:


> I think this raises a fundamental issue, namely that we now appear to be so afraid of being labelled 'prescriptive' that many of us equivocate when it comes to what is 'correct' English, and turn to common usage, possibly too often.



I completely understand what you're saying, and agree with most of it. But an analogy I read recently in _In the Land of Invented Languages _(NB not a direct quote): a biologist observes and describes what he sees, so surely, a linguist observes and describes what it sees/hears/even says. And so, descriptive grammar is the answer to this issue. But like you say, it does raise the question: do we turn to common usage too often?

Well, _common_ usage can be referred to as it is _common_. What is common in language is thought of as being understood by users of common language. But then it falls to a definition of _common_. Can _common _be defined with a percentage of 'the population'? If not, then how can it be defined?

If the purpose of natural language is communication, then surely what is correct is what can be understood. But that then takes any 'power' from native speakers, because a non-native who makes many 'errors' can still be understood, even though a native would say that it is "ungrammatical" - just like Tarzan's famous words. And consider this: if two (enough to communicate) native speakers create a language game that only they understand, is the language thought of as an ungrammatical form of their native language? Yes. Even the creators would say so, yet the two can communicate perfectly well.

I see grammatical correctness as a matter as subjective as can be. An American (I don't know much about AmE dialects...) says, "I ain't got no money." - I say this is ungrammatical, but I know that to many, it _is_ grammatical. To me, what I say is grammatical. To you, what you say is grammatical, but you may also be of the opinion that things you would never consider saying are also grammatical.

But STILL, some see "I ain't got no money" as grammatical, while none see "Me Tarzan, you Jane" as grammatical. So of course, because 'some' accept the former, it is correct.

My point is: it's subjective. Everyone uses language differently, so surely everyone has different rules which they follow, as long as they're understood. But then still remains the Tarzan issue - he has rules that he follows, but they're wrong, yet everyone STILL understands him.

It is more easy to define one criterion for grammatical incorrectness: what all native speakers believe is grammatically incorrect is so. The opposite also holds: whatever all native speakers believe is correct is correct. I believe that one of two criteria must be met for something to be considered correct: all native speakers share the same opinion, or what is here being asked.

So, of course, what all native speakers think is correct must be correct.
What must be asked is the fine line between grammatically correct and incorrect.

This seems slightly tangential as I was writing it, and I'm sorry if it's a bit muddled.

Lloyd


----------



## Francobritannocolombien

Thank you all for posting very interesting and thought-provoking replies to my initial questions. As a language teacher, I can identify with those who advocate teaching a standard form of the language and clearly describing nonstandard forms as such. But I also think it is important to make learners aware of their existence if they are common. I think that it is more relevant to describe sentences as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" in a certain context than "correct" or "incorrect" absolutely if it is just a question of register. Would anybody else than an extremely stubborn purist find fault with the store name *Toys "Я" Us *and insist that it be named _*Toys Are **We *_instead? Would anyone find it normal for a head of state to greet another at an international summit with "Yo, man! Wassup?"
As a linguist (or at least as someone who has studied linguistics to some extent), I find that the only grammar that makes sense must be descriptive, since its purpose is not to tell native speakers how they should speak their own language (according to what rules? whose rules?), but to try to understand what implicit rules they follow in order to use the language the way they do in the various circumstances that they use it (including, but certainly not limited to, the formal written form). So, how do we reconcile the linguist and the language teacher? I think it is important to teach learners how to make the difference between what is the *standard *form (i.e. what Kumpel describes as what all native speakers agree upon), what is *impossible *(i.e. what all native speakers agree is ungrammatical, e.g. "these childs is much intelligents") and what is *nonstandard *(i.e. might be used by some speakers in some circumstances but not recognized by the majority as the standard form). This latest category is interesting for the linguist to study. It should not be taught as the norm (for fear the learner might use it in an inappropriate context, e.g. in a job interview), but it should also be identified as something that does exist and that could, who knows?, become the norm one day. After all, languages have gone through many changes over the centuries, and I am sure all changes have made purists cringe when they occurred. Can you imagine if now were the time when people started to use "you" to mean "you", "ye", "thou" and "thee" indiscriminately ? 

This post is by no means intended to close the debate, and I welcome further comments from my eminent fellow _foreros_.


----------



## Hulalessar

All language is a convention. It is not therefore a question of whether any particular usage is correct or incorrect, but whether it complies with the conventions of a particular group. As Humpel suggests we do though have to decide what the group is we are looking at if you are going to describe a language. Clearly the larger the group the more variation there will be and the more difficult the job, not to mention the complication that some people may use more than one convention. Even so, it has to be possible to come up with a description of a language whether it be at street, suburb, city, regional or national level.

Once you have made the description it becomes a prescription! That is why description and prescription should be seen as being on a continuum, or two sides of the same coin.

If you regard language as a convention that changes over time that avoids the difficulty of the extreme prescriptivist who is in effect saying: "Change only happens in the past; all future changes will be grammatical errors." Whilst there is at any given moment a convention that everyone agrees on, language is constantly evolving. At the same time  departures from convention may be noted, whilst language change generally may not.


----------



## koniecswiata

When considering correctness, we probably have to consider how incorrect the error is.  There are varying degrees.  Is it an error of style, grammar, usage/commonality, semantics, register--wrong kind of language for the situation?
Then, we have to think about what the "punitive repercusions" of the error are.  Will you be ostracized for saying this?  Will you be fired?  Will your teacher give you a bad grade?  Will your friends think you are stupid or weird?  Or, will nothing happen, will it be accepted?  This all leads to the motivation for accepting a form as correct, or rejecting it as pedantic, old fashioned, or even wrong.


----------



## clevermizo

What I'd like to add to the discussion is people are commonly used to learning standardized languages. However, I think that if we loosely define correctness and incorrectness to envelope statistical norms among native speakers, the benefit that we gain is a working theory of correctness and incorrectness among _unstandardized languages_. To me, if I say "Yeah, me and John are going to the store,**"  I'm perfectly content saying that this usage is colloquial and that it is incorrect in the register of standard (written?) English. However, I prefer my colloquial usage because it feels the most natural in informal situations, and I have enough education to gauge situations appropriately, and change my register and grammatical norms to suit said situations.

However the working theory above regarding the use of native speakers' own norms as the "correctness"-metric has its use in the pedagogy of languages with no standard. For example, anyone who is attempting to gain fluency in a diglossic language such as Arabic (like I am), must have a metric of what is correct and incorrect, even though technically there is no such designation in the spoken dialect. Spoken norms set this correctness. I know that *_ana bəddi bākol_ is incorrect, and that _ana bəddi ākol_ (gloss: _I want to eat_) is correct grammatically, based upon the norms of spoken Syrian (and other Levantine) dialect(s). Since all languages are systematic and describable, there is no such thing as being able to "speak however you want" implying some sort of anarchy. I'd like to add that *ana bəddi bākol is completely comprehensible to a native speaker, however it sounds noticeably "off" - which we may as well label "incorrect." 



**Interestingly, while "John and I" is patently correct, in terms of colloquial language only "me and John" sounds correct (normative?) to me, whereas "John and me" does not.


----------



## Chimel

I can agree with many of the interestings things which have been said here, but I'd like to point out that grammar books, dictionaries and other reliable references *already* take into account the differences between the norm and more informal, daily usage.

Take for instance my Thomson & Martinet grammar book about the way to use the verb _dare_:

"Negatives and interrogative forms with do/did are in theory followed by the infinitive with to, but in practice the to is often omitted: _He doesn't dare (to) say anything."_

This is only one example among thousands of such comments you find in those books ("it should be so, but in pratice people often say this"). So it's not just an opposition between a rigid norm and an evolutive usage, as some of you seem to think: the norm allows a certain degree of flexibility.!

My point is: why should we go further, then? If we can't find any reliable source saying that _between you and I_ (to take Phil-Olly's example) is something which can be tolerated in informal usage, who are we to decide that it _is_ grammatical?​


----------



## Ben Jamin

Outsider said:


> Native speakers can hardly be described as 'ignorant' of their own language!


 
Yes, they can! People can use words and expressions self contradictory and confusing.
A couple of examples from the Norwegian language:

"Per kjørte Paul til leiligheten sin" 
This sentence is ambigous, according to current use it is impossible to know who owned the apartment Paul was driven to.
"Johan opererte hjertet sitt"
Johan is not a heart surgeon, he is an ordinary patient.


----------



## merquiades

I think in the end the rule of the people will win out, otherwise we'd still be speaking Latin, Ancient Greek and Slavonic.  I was just reading a French play from the 1600's that included a part criticizing those who prononce guttural R because rolled R is obviously historically correct and better.  Well, we see what finally happened, don't we?

I can see both points of view.  In English I had great grammar teachers. The old school that pounded in May I? not Can I? and If I were... never if I was... or never write contractions in a formal report..  That stuck.  So when I hear... what if God was one of us? I have the urge to scream (well silently scream) at least.  Looking at my English books, I know that the authorities in Oxford have decided that none of these things are mistakes anymore... but that urge is still there to shout out NO!!

In Spanish though, my experience is the opposite.  I learnt that language listening, speaking and imitating what I heard in the street.  For example, people do not distinguish the object prounouns le (to him, indirect) from lo (him, direct) and say le all the time. When I was taught the rule much later I was stunned. After all that exposure to le, the correct way sounded wrong to my ears!  Now it seems that so many people are leistas, the rules have started to be relaxed by the RAE.

I guess, all in all, I would say I still believe norms should be taught even if they go against the trend of most native speakers.  Whether or not people integrate them into their speech at home is irrelevant.  That's their choice.  BUT grammatical correctness, if it is not taught at schools and required in formal contexts, where will it be?  Education is empowering, will keep the language from going too far astray, and maintain a standard. In the middle, well, there can be obvious needed flexibility.  Everyone has a role.  I believe it's wrong for authorities to start accepting huge mistakes, however widespread they may be but it's also a losing battle to try stigmatizing street talk. It's wasted energy.


----------



## koniecswiata

Something that Ben Jammin said caught my attention about native speakers being ignorant about their language.  Well, yes and no.  True, people can be ignorant of prescribed rules, etymology, things like that because, well, they CAN be; at the end of the day certain things are not "life and death" important.
On the other hand, the examples he gave, which are interesting, showed this kind of difuse, unspecific language.  This is common.  In writting, for example, it would be poor style to be so ambiguous as in his examples, but in speaking, people do it all the time.  Sometimes, even for a reason.  In "lower registers", it may even be preferable to be a little ambiguous or"ungrammatical" for various socio-linguistic reasons:  to build a conexion with the listener, to be ambiguous on purpose, etc...
Another example like this is from Chilean Spanish.  Proper Spanish has words distinguishing pen (bolígrafo/pluma) from pencil (lápiz) or bookstore (librería) from stationery store (papelería).  In Chilean Spanish, people purposefully avoid the pen and stationery store words using bookstore and pencil instead.  They choose greater ambiguity.  If you say "bolígrafo" or "papelería" people would think you were strange.  It's a case where purposefull ambiguity has won out over linguistic precision.  Personally, I like the precise words, but the fact is, people just don't want to use them.  Consequently, there are "bookstores" (librerías) that sell no books.  People will say what they want.


----------



## XiaoRoel

En *Vendryes*, _Le langage_, toda la cuarta parte trata de estos temas con sabiduría y cordura. Sobre el tema de este hilo en particular es de especial interés el cap. III, "Les langues communes" (_estándar_, diríamos ahora).


----------



## Chimel

merquiades said:


> I guess, all in all, I would say I still believe norms should be taught even if they go against the trend of most native speakers. Whether or not people integrate them into their speech at home is irrelevant. That's their choice. BUT grammatical correctness, if it is not taught at schools and required in formal contexts, where will it be? Education is empowering, will keep the language from going too far astray, and maintain a standard.


This is *exactly* the way I see things too!

It's a bit like traffic law, in a sense. Who can say he always strictly follows traffic rules? A certain degree of flexibility must be allowed when you drive - or when you speak... But if the police themselves say there are no rules any longer and it's no harm if you run through a red light, well, then it's chaos!

It's a game where grammarians, authorities and purists can only loose: in the end, they'll always have to comply with common usage, as many of us have pointed out. But it's their part of the play to resist as long as possible - just as is it the people's role to create, to invent and to turn rules down.

So, as far as I am concerned, I resist - without excess, but I rather belong to those who resist and stick to a certain "grammatical correctness". There are already enough people nowadays who don't...


----------



## Frank06

Ben Jamin said:


> Yes, they can! People can use words and expressions self contradictory and confusing.


That's quite normal, no? It has little to do with grammatical correctness.
"Pete combed his hair" is -- apart from being grammatically correct -- highly ambiguous, because we lack any kind of context.


> A couple of examples from the Norwegian language:
> "Per kjørte Paul til leiligheten sin"
> This sentence is ambigous, according to current use it is impossible to know who owned the apartment Paul was driven to.


It's rather pointless to start about ambiguous sentences in a thread about grammatical correctness _and_ without giving any kind of context.

Frank


----------



## Sebastian11

What criteria do you use to determine what is grammatically correct or incorrect?

The reason languages are studied in schools, colleges and universities, is to make students aware of the correct language usage, whatever the language. I think that this is the main reason to study grammar. Most grammar books point out the differences between the standard and nonstandard use of the language.
What is standard has already been accepted as appropriate by institutions of learning which has been written in grammar books as the correct form of expression.
I understand that the use of nonstandard English, for example, is very frequent, and common among American native speakers, but the fact that it is nonstandard, and used by many, does not make correct. The sentence, "He don't trust me", can never replace, "He doesn't trust me". It is simply incorrect. Yet, the use of the former expression is accepted as nonstandard and used frequently by native English speakers. I would not correct folks who use nonstandard English, in a conversation outside the classroom, but in the classroom I would point it out as an example of nonstandard use of the language, and would make sure the student is aware of the difference between the two.
In the case of "Who" and "Whom", the uses are interchanged. even by "educated" people, but eventhough this example has been generally accepted, the fact remains, that "Who" is in the nominative case and "Whom" in the objective case. "Who" carries out the action of the verb, and "Whom" receives it. "Whom" is also the object of a preposition. If we were to overlook these and thousands of other differences in grammar and language usage, in a few hundred years, we would be speaking several versions of the same language, and "understanding" would be compromised.
The Royal Academy of Spain, has a motto about the use of Spanish: "Limpia, fija y da esplendor," and they are insistent in keeping it that way. Otherwise, with so many countries speanking Spanish around the world, we would be speanking several versions of Spanish, thus compromising comprehension.


----------



## magosil79

I would make a distinction between 1) grammatical rules stored in people's mind and 2) grammatical rules stored in (prescriptive) grammars.
Before the invention of writing and still today among those people who don't have a written form for their language (included many dialects) what really matters to determine the correctness of an utterance are the rules stored deeply in the mind of the speaker, rules learnt not in school but by exposure to the language as a baby. Even for the speakers of a small tribe in the Amazonian forest there is such a thing as a correct and incorrect sentence, but the criterion to determine if a sentence is correct or not lies in the judgement of the speakers. The speaker FEELS that a sentence is correct not because he can recollect a set of rules learnt in school but because the sentence complies with his mental grammar, and he\she feels that a sentence is incorrect because it clashes again with his mental rules, because it doesn't agree with them. Of course the judgement is 'subjective', after all the rules are inside the brains of every single speaker and the grammar of every speaker can differ slightly from the grammar of another one.
Then came the invention of writing, literature, the spread of literacy and so on, and with that the creation of prescriptive grammars, rules laid out in books, on the paper in an attempt to determine objective grammatical rules . Now the problem with this kind of grammar is that it doesn't change, it always stays the same, while the grammar in people's mind changes generation after generation.
Linguistics nowadays tends to prefer descriptive grammars (how languages really work) with generative grammar being the attempt of laying out the speaker's mental rules.
As far the as the correct language usage is concerned, for me that is more an issue of sociology or of sociolinguistics. The usage of language says a lot about our background, where we come from, which kind of school we attended, etc. If you want to go and teach in a university you know implicitly that your essays must be written in 'perfect' english or whatever 'perfect' version of your language, because any mistake or regionalism will put you in a bad light with your colleagues, showing maybe a lack of education or whatever. On the other hand in a more 'relaxed' (linguistically speaking) context, more colloquial expressions might be acceptable or even advisable. (have you ever made fun of somebody who speaks like a 'printed book'?).
In language usage _prestige_ is very important. Normally the language used by the most prestigious group of people tend to become the norm, unless there is an unconscious attempt to differentiate from this class.


----------



## panjandrum

The purpose of language is to communicate.
Communication is a complex process.
When we use language, we communicate a great deal.
Probably most important, there is what we seek to communicate - the meaning that we want to convey.
But in addition, we communicate information in the way we use language, in the choice of words and the way we put them together - grammar.

If I use words and put them together in the way my audience is most familiar with, they won't notice and will focus on the meaning I want to convey.

If I use words and put them together in some other way, my audience will pick up the secondary messages.  That will certainly distract them from the meaning I want to convey and may also create negative impressions that frustrate the impact of my primary message.

What has this to do with grammatical correctness?
Grammatically correct English is the use of vocabulary and grammar in the form that is least likely to distract the audience from the primary purpose of language, to communicate meaning.

So "grammatically correct" varies depending on context?  Before dumping this perspective completely, set aside the usages that make you cringe in horror.  

We write using and speak using different vocabulary and grammar.
If I am talking to an American audience, I should adapt my vocabulary and certain aspects of grammatical construction to suit.  
If I am speaking to kids under six, I should adapt my vocabulary and certain aspects of grammatical construction to suit.  
We do this all the time.

Does that mean anything goes?  Not at all. It means that students must learn the kind of language that will meet the expectations of their teachers. It means that teachers must teach the kind of language that will meet the expectations of the most likely audiences that their students will encounter.  Most of the time, that is not particularly difficult to define.


----------



## Sebastian11

How to define "grammatical correctness"

Thank you for your replies to my thread. I found them most interesting.
My original thread to the question of "grammatical correctness" focused mainly on the concept of the criteria to be used to determine "correctness", and my position was that it is determined by the rules established by the rules of grammar and the way these are applied by grammarians, schools, and institutions of learing in general.
The idea that "correctness" is determined by "the meaning we want to convey" (comunication), and the choice of words and the way we put them together" (style), is certainly an intriguing concept, but how do we know that the application of these ideas are grammatically correct, if we don't use the criteria of grammatical conventions to determine "grammatical correctness."
Making a distinction betwen, 1) the grammatical rules stored in people's mind amd 2) grammatical rules stored in (prescriptive) grammars, could be excellent criteria to determine "grammatical correctness," if we first ascertain,  the people we are talking about and the language they are using, and even with this assertion, determining "grammatical correctness" would have to be submitted to a thorough analysis.
Exactly, what are the grammaticl rules these people have in mind. Are they slang rules, colloquial rules, formal, informal, jargon, spanglish. 
My point is that the grammatical rules that people have in mind, unless they are the appopriate rules establish by the grammar rules in (prescriptive) grammars, are not very reliable criteria to determine "grammatical correctness."


----------



## Francobritannocolombien

Sebastian11 said:


> How to define "grammatical correctness"
> Thank you for your replies to my thread. I found them most interesting.



I could have said just the same! But I don't think a thread "belongs" to anyone in particular who jumps into the conversation (or even to the person who did start it, for that matter). That said, I do not agree with Sebastian that "correctness" is defined by books. Who writes the books? what criteria do the authors of those books choose to decide what is correct and what is not? I find that the previous two posts (by magosil 79 and by panjandrum) reflect exactly the way I see things: usage is what defines grammar, and then the job of linguists is to understand the unwritten rules that native speakers follow in order to speak. When you learn your first language as an infant, you don't read books: you construct a logical (but not explicit) system in your mind, based on language you are exposed to, and which you use to build new sentences. Babies who grow up in an English environment *acquire *the elements that will allow them to build a coherent system; they do not *learn* the rule that you form the plural of a noun by adding an s at the end of the word, which you pronounce /s/ if it follows an unvoiced consonant other than s, /z/ if it follows a vowel or a voiced consonant, or /iz/ if it follows a noun that already ends with an s: for starters, babies do not read or write, and they have no idea what a consonant or a vowel is, let alone an s. That is that kind of thing that linguists deduct from the way people use language, not the other way round.

I totally agree with the two posters mentioned that "correctness" is a strictly sociological consideration, and that it does not always mean the same thing to all people all the time.


----------



## AbdulJabbar

"Between he and I" is a classic example of interlanguage. The "he and I" rule is taught to children to illustrate one point (order of words), and misapplied by the learner in a different context (the last vestiges of the archaic case system). It is incomplete knowledge, an attempt to apply a poorly-explained rule, which is, I would argue, different from ignorance.

Allow me to thrown a large rock into the pond, and please take no offense, for none is meant. 

IMHO there are no grammar rules. The "rules" are merely contemporary EXPLANATIONS of how the language is already spoken. "Grammatical correctness" is like the much-maligned "political correctness;" is is done for reasons other than its stated purpose, and brings out the worst in people. 

I think anyone who attaches a moral dimension to grammar ("I'm better than you because I say 'whom'") is doing so for their own egotistical reasons. 

We are having this discussion (mostly) in English, and everything we are saying is theoretically wrong because our ancestors sloppilly ignored the "rules" of their language, Old Norse (and who knows what before that). Furthermore, "rules" that were correct in Shakespeare's time were later deliberately changed (see below).

The idea that a native speaker is "ignorant" is like saying that every speaker of modern Spanish is ignorant, because Spanish is sloppy, fallen Latin. 

With virtually no exceptions, the instances when I have heard people harp on others' grammar were based not on misunderstanding, but rather on a need to feel superior. If someone says "I don't got no money," only an intellectually dishonest person would say that he really didn't understand what was meant. 

If someone's way of speaking grates on me (which happens frequently), I remind myself that registers of speech are supposed to be part of a language, just like vernacular, accents and dialects. I am neither better nor worse than others just because we speak differently. 

Even if we slavishly follow English "rules," many of them are artificial and contrived; Bishop Lowth and his fellow pedants (1770s) forced Latin grammar rules into a Germanic language, and they did so in complete defiance of the "rules" of the language as spoken in their time. So if anything is considered "wrong" about English Grammar, it should be the rules themselves. Latin was chosen for reasons of snobbery and religious intolerance, not practicality or tradition, and many of the Latin rules are in direct conflict with Germanic structure (e. g. not ending a sentence with a preposition). There are a variety of registers in every language, but each has its own grammar, pronunciation and syntax. Each is its own interlanguage.  

To steal from Sir Winston, this is the sort of nonsense "up with which I will not put." 

If a hundred million people stop saying "thou" or adding case-endings to nouns, and a thousand pedants continue to use them, the thousand are free to do so. But the language has moved on, and the mass of speakers with it. If the native speakers of a language decide to boldly go into the inevitable future (rather than to go boldly, thereby avoiding a split infinitive), those left behind have no one to blame but themselves. If anyone is "wrong," it's those who treat language as faith rather than communication.

End of rant. Please forgive.


----------



## Sebastian11

Originally posted by Francobritannocolumbien. "I disagree that 'correctness' is defined by books"
I am not presuming to know all the answers to "grammatical correctness", nor is it my intention to give grammatical lessons to anyone in this forum. When I thanked Panjandrum and Magosil for their threads, I did not mean to take ownership of their replies solely for myself, I know better than that. I was notified via email of their replies and thanked them absent mindedly unaware that someone would make an issue of it. I beg your pardon.
I never said that I disagree, with the ideas in the threads I replied to, and I wasn't being ironic when I said I found them interesting. I imagine that "grammatical correctness" is determined by how people use the language and whether they choose to observe grammatical rules, or ignore them. That's how a live language grows and changes, but since we were trying to determine by what criteria do we establish "grammatical correctness", I still say it is by the established rules in grammar. That is not to say that you have to be a slave to them, but it is the criteria to establish "grammatical correctness." I am speaking strictly from the point of view of the classroom. How the students express themselves outside the classroom or even in it, is not what concerns me, my job is to facilitate them with the appropriate grammatical correctness. If my position sounds uptight, I am not. I am also very flexible and engage with them in discussions such as these ones.


----------



## clevermizo

AbdulJabbar said:


> With virtually no exceptions, the instances when I have heard people harp on others' grammar were based not on misunderstanding, but rather on a need to feel superior. If someone says "I don't got no money," only an intellectually dishonest person would say that he really didn't understand what was meant.



Yes, I agree with you on this. I've witnessed it myself. 



AbdulJabbar said:


> If someone's way of speaking grates on me (which happens frequently), I remind myself that registers of speech are supposed to be part of a language, just like vernacular, accents and dialects. I am neither better nor worse than others just because we speak differently.



Well yes and no. You are not a better or worse _person_ obviously by having a good command of standard English. However you have more symbolic capital, because fluency in standard English is (for better or worse) a sociological necessity (by construction) for things like applying for certain jobs, "moving up the social ladder", doing well in school, etc. Obviously it could be any dialect of English or all dialects of English that occupy this role, however this is not the case.



AbdulJabbar said:


> Even if we slavishly follow English "rules," many of them are artificial and contrived; Bishop Lowth and his fellow pedants (1770s) forced Latin grammar rules into a Germanic language, and they did so in complete defiance of the "rules" of the language as spoken in their time. So if anything is considered "wrong" about English Grammar, it should be the rules themselves. Latin was chosen for reasons of snobbery and religious intolerance, not practicality or tradition, and many of the Latin rules are in direct conflict with Germanic structure (e. g. not ending a sentence with a preposition).



Actually this is mostly the stuff of legend and folklore in English linguistic history. I highly suggest you read Lowth's "A Short Introduction to English Grammar."  You might find the very word "Latin" mentioned once or twice. Although crotchety and pedantic, his work is actually very thorough as a description on the prestige English grammar of his time.




AbdulJabbar said:


> If anyone is "wrong," it's those who treat language as faith rather than communication.



I agree with you, naturally. There are really annoying people all over the world staring down upon others in condescension for a mere split infinitive or a "double" negative or an "ain't" or a "fixin' ta." 

However please consider, as other posters have noted, standardizing the grammar of a language and instructing based on this standard does have the effect of minimizing, at least _in writing_, what might otherwise be vast and unintelligible differences between speakers. It fixes a koine language and furthermore it creates a written record of its description. It makes my world of communication automatically larger than my local community. Now, whether or not this is _desirable_ I can't say, because I haven't lived in a society without it.

Secondly, having a standardized written grammar aids pedagogy. If you don't think that native speakers need to be taught their language, then fine. But consider non-native speakers. While you can acquire a second language through acquisition alone, adult learners have an easier time if they at least internalize some sort of written description first. For example, recently in our laboratory we've hired a new assistant who is a native speaker of a Luhya Bantu language. I was curious about materials if I wanted to learn such a language: there are none. I would have to move to Kenya or Uganda where it is spoken and learn it just based on imitation or perhaps a generous bilingual speaker with a habit of instructing. That's all well and good, but learning French is _more accessible_ because French has standardized grammar and dictionaries. I'm not saying they should standardize her language or unstandardize French - simply that standardized languages are more accessible to learners.

Again there will always be pedants and jerks who use formal descriptions and prescriptions of grammar as an excuse to... well, be pedants and jerks. However I think that there is a place for delineating "grammatical rules" even if it's more a sociological than a linguistic consideration.


----------



## Chimel

Francobritannocolombien said:


> I find that the previous two posts (by magosil 79 and by panjandrum) reflect exactly the way I see things: usage is what defines grammar, and then the job of linguists is to understand the unwritten rules that native speakers follow in order to speak. (...) That is that kind of thing that linguists deduct from the way people use language, not the other way round.


I clearly see now why we don't quite agree (although many of the things you point out are quite right): I think you mix up grammar and linguistics, as your last post shows.

To me, a linguist is a neutral observator of how language works. There are no such things as mistakes or correctness for him, just evolutions. Replace "grammar" by "linguistics" in all the previous posts and we all totally agree, I think.

But is there no distinction between both? This could be the subject of another interesting discussion...

I see a grammarian as a sort policeman of language, as I said in a previous post. A very flexible policeman, by the way: every good grammar book contains hundreds of distinctions between norm and usage, and today's grammar books accept evolutions they used to condemn 20 or 50 years ago.

So, as I also said, grammarians play a game where, in the end, they always lose! But it's their role to be conservative, just to counterbalance usage which is by nature progressive and permissive.

Believe me, if there were no conservative grammarians at all, we would all speak a very rare language and maybe hardly understand each other.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Is the belief that all changes in a language are beneficial, correct? The extreme adherents of the "natural" evolution of language say "yes", but are they right? The evolution may impair the communicative properties of a language, at least for a period, but the period can be quite long.
In a modern society the need of a highly precise means of communication creates the need to use rules both for grammar and vocabulary that are very strict. And I mean here real rules, not rules induced  by a neutral observer.


----------



## miguel89

> The evolution may impair the communicative properties of a language, at least for a period, but the period can be quite long.


Are you implying that linguistic change is stronger than the speakers' need of language as a means of expression and communication? That is not true. Please mention one example of a language that was ever comunicatively impaired and its consequences.


----------



## sokol

Ben Jamin said:


> Is the belief that all changes in a language are beneficial, correct? The extreme adherents of the "natural" evolution of language say "yes", but are they right? The evolution may impair the communicative properties of a language, at least for a period, but the period can be quite long.
> In a modern society the need of a highly precise means of communication creates the need to use rules both for grammar and vocabulary that are very strict. And I mean here real rules, not rules induced  by a neutral observer.



I cannot answer this questions for the others - I'm only giving my personal opinion here: for my money language change per se is not beneficial, or more precisely: this is the wrong question here.

My standpoint is that I'd rather not decide whether some changing feature is good or bad, or beneficial or not beneficial, or whatever category else one might find.
(Of course I will always have a 'private' opinion on some changes but I try to completely put this one aside when making a grammaticality statement: both are different things and shouldn't get merged, or so I think it should be.)

Take for example the one I mentioned earlier, English "I'll try and make it better" for "I'll try to make it better this time".
In school I learned that "I'll try and make" is wrong and that we must not use it. However, when reading English literature or watching English movies or even listening to English news (spoken by educated native speakers of English) you hear this construction of "try and" all the time.
Over time I've come to the conclusion that learners of English probably even might be identifiable by their _*non-use*_ of "try and", as native speakers use it frequently (even in formal speech).

So here, in my opinion, we have a rather clear example of a construction ("try and") which is considered >incorrect< by traditional grammar, and also some (or many? or most?) native speakers while in real life it couldn't possibly be considered incorrect, if you look at its use (note, not only frequency is important here but also style - from colloquial to informal to very formal style, it's found to be everywhere, from educated and not so educated ones ...).

Of course I cannot make an intuitive native speakers judgement about "try and", what I wrote above is just what I _*think*_ is the case. (I think the existing discussion about this topic in English Only confirms my views but I might be mistaken here. )

Also, I DO have a personal opinion about this construction. But my personal opinion (I disliked the phrase in the beginning but over time came to like it, and I've even begun using it) is not relevant here, when it comes to grammatical correctness.

I don't own any of the authoritative English grammars (the ones from the leading English publishing houses) so I cannot comment on how they view this construction; but if they describe it as wrong then, in my opinion, they're wrong, or more precisely - old-fashioned: I do not see the logic of proclaiming something being 'wrong' which is so widely used, by such a wide spectrum of the English speaking community.

So back to the post of yours I quoted, Ben Jamin: if one would apply basic logics to the "try-and"-construction then basic logics would prove this construction as 'wrong' (reason being, "to try and do something" would mean to try A and do B, which obviously isn't meant here).
However, language does not work by basic logics; and also, the construction of "try and" is not at all misleading for _*any*_ native speakers of English (or so I think; I don't think I'm wrong here but I still might be ) - it is only misleading for those learners of English who have been told by their teachers that "try and" is wrong, or who have been confronted only with texts with not a single "try and" construction.

To cut the long story short, to exclude the "try-and"-construction from English language is even _*problematic*_ for learners of English.
From this standpoint it would be highly recommended to include this construction in English grammar, in order to repair the damage of deficient rules confusing learners of English - because I would describe rules as 'deficient' if they're describing a language in a way which is not accurate.

And to describe 'proper' and 'correct' English as a language where no such "try-and"-constructions exist really _would_ be inaccurate, no?


Of course there are also plenty of other examples where it's not at all as clear where to draw the line - where grammaticality begins.


----------



## Frank06

Ben Jamin said:


> Is the belief that all changes in a language are beneficial, correct? The extreme adherents of the "natural" evolution of language say "yes", but are they right?


"Benefical" is such a subjective and empty term that I hardly see a way to start answering this question. Is it beneficial that Old English cases disappeared and that a stricter word order got used (to simplify things a bit)? No idea, it changed. That's it. 
I don't think many a linguist would spend a lot of energy pondering whether this was a beneficial change or not.



> The evolution may impair the communicative properties of a language, at least for a period, but the period can be quite long.


Can you give examples of a speech community or a language (phase) in which communication broke down (or deteriorated) due to changes?



> In a modern society the need of a highly precise means of communication creates the need to use rules both for grammar and vocabulary that are very strict.


That's quite a statement. What makes you think so and can you back this up?


----------



## Francobritannocolombien

Ben Jamin said:


> In a modern society the need of a highly precise means of communication creates the need to use rules both for grammar and vocabulary that are very strict.



"Strict" is at least as hard to define as "correct": how rigorous does one need to be in order to be understood? Isn't language (including perfectly grammatical standard language) full of shortcuts, approximations, metaphors and metonymies? If someone asks you to _wipe your feet_ before you step inside, do you take off your shoes and your socks so that you can actually wipe your *feet*? In some (scientific, legal) contexts, you need to define almost every word you will use before you can use it to ensure that it is understood the way you mean it. Does that mean that language has evolved out of control? Certainly not, and I suspect it has always been necessary to do so, but only because the nature of the specific situation requires it, and it is in the nature of words to convey different meanings to different people in different situations. This can be illustrated by the joke about three university professors on their way to a conference and spotting a black bear by the side of the road.
Philosophy prof: "I didn't know there were black bears around here."
Physics prof: "And you still don't: all you know is that there is one black bear here today."
Maths prof: "No, you don"t: all you know is that there is one bear here today, at least one side of which is black."


----------



## clevermizo

Well, a good example of "when communication breaks down" is the early historical stages of a Pidgin or a contact language where you have a new community of people among whom there is not a common language.

However, this breakdown in communication is not due to changes in either language involved. 

Furthermore, after a new generation of speakers arises, grammaticality is very quickly imposed by a new crop of native speakers of a new variety of language. So in fact the _changes_ which occur simply facilitate communication, rather than detract from it. 

Again if there is an early stage in which there is difficulty in communication in a new speech community, this is quickly remedied with a generation of speakers born in such a community. I can't think of a long-lasting communication deficit that isn't due to extra-linguistic social phenomena.

But really none of this has anything to do with language change within a speech community with many contiguous generations of native speakers. I don't know if there is any possibility that such a change could occur that would halt or detract from communication. I presume quite like natural evolution, features of language that actually stall or impair communication are quickly selected out, since we use language in order to communicate. All nit-picking aside, "I don't eat no vegetables" can only mean one thing to any native speaker of English, and thus it is not ambiguous and does not impair communication. The fact that someone can say, "That's incorrect! You should say 'I do not eat (any) vegetables' " shows that they know what it really means, so there is still no ambiguity in the original statement.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Francobritannocolombien said:


> " In some (scientific, legal) contexts, you need to define almost every word you will use before you can use it to ensure that it is understood the way you mean it.


In everyday's life you can manage very well with a language as imprecise as you wish. You can speak just a gobbledygook with a correct intonation and body language, and you will be understood even better, than if you were speaking perfect English with wrong body language. The question is how you manage in areas of life like administration, management, engineering, justice, medicine, science, and so on, and so on.


----------



## koniecswiata

Academies can prescribe all they want as far as grammar and acceptable word usage are concerned.  But, do people use what these academies prescribe?  In the case of Spanish, the Real Academia that stands for "limpia, fija, y da esplandor" has its work cut out for it!  Think of all the signs, newspaper articles (badly written?), speech produced by people that does not conform to the Academy?  I wonder, maybe such academies should be given the power to fine people or something like that...
Ok, that was facetious.  Of course, communication has to remain attainable--but it will as long as the community of users wants that.  Besides, an individual user has many options.  The person can adhere to certain rules or not.  It's a personal choice.  In the case of English, you can choose to say "Between you and me" or "whom" or "I have a big ask" or not, etc...


----------



## Phil-Olly

Ben Jamin said:


> In everyday's life you can manage very well with a language as imprecise as you wish. You can speak just a gobbledygook with a correct intonation and body language, and you will be understood even better, than if you were speaking perfect English with wrong body language. The question is how you manage in areas of life like administration, management, engineering, justice, medicine, science, and so on, and so on.


 
This is exactly the point, isn't it? 

Schools teach a standard of English that is supposed to form the basis of just such formal communication - to provide a grounding for those who enter those fields.

But when I hear 'I have went' commonly used by professional people, I wonder if these same people manage to switch register when writing letters or reports.

And when I see a sign at the airport that says 'Taxi's', I wonder if punctuation is still taught in schools.


----------

