Says Who?

Says Who? Plot Summary

Introduction

Language rules often appear absolute and immutable, yet beneath this facade lies a complex web of historical contingencies, power dynamics, and evolving social conventions. The tension between prescriptive ideals and descriptive realities creates a fascinating landscape where seemingly straightforward questions about "correct" usage reveal deeper truths about human communication and social organization. By examining how language standards emerge, who benefits from particular rules, and why certain forms face stigmatization, we gain insight not just into grammar but into how societies establish and maintain hierarchies of value. This exploration challenges us to move beyond simplistic notions of linguistic correctness toward a more nuanced understanding of language as a dynamic social tool. Rather than asking merely "Is this correct?" we might instead consider "Effective for whom, in what context, and to what end?" Such questions invite us to examine the historical development of language conventions, recognize the arbitrary nature of many grammar rules, appreciate the social dimensions of language judgment, and ultimately develop a more flexible, context-sensitive approach to communication that balances respect for useful conventions with recognition of language's inherent diversity and adaptability.

Chapter 1: The Myth of Absolute Correctness: How Language Rules Actually Evolve

Language rules have never been as fixed as many people believe. Throughout history, English grammar has evolved through a complex interplay between natural language use and prescriptive attempts to standardize it. What we now consider "correct" English represents not timeless truths but the outcome of historical processes shaped by social, political, and cultural forces. Understanding this evolution helps us approach language with greater flexibility and nuance. Many grammar rules that seem fundamental today emerged relatively recently in the history of English. The prohibition against double negatives—constructions like "I don't know nothing"—was artificially imposed by 18th-century grammarians who believed English should follow Latin's logical structure. Before this intervention, multiple negations were common in English literature, including works by Chaucer and Shakespeare. Similarly, the rule against splitting infinitives (as in "to boldly go") emerged from attempts to make English conform to Latin grammar, where infinitives consist of a single word that cannot be split. The standardization of English accelerated during the 18th century, when influential grammarians like Robert Lowth and Lindley Murray codified their personal preferences into authoritative texts. These works often presented subjective judgments as objective rules, establishing conventions that would be taught for generations. Lowth, for instance, criticized sentence-final prepositions despite their long history in English, famously prompting Winston Churchill's alleged retort: "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put." Language evolution continues despite prescriptive efforts to freeze it in place. Words acquire new meanings, grammatical constructions shift, and pronunciation changes—all through the collective actions of speakers rather than by decree. The word "nice" once meant "foolish" before evolving through "precise" to its current positive meaning. "You" was originally only a plural pronoun, with "thou" serving as the singular form. These changes occurred not because authorities approved them but because communities of speakers found them useful. What drives language evolution is not random error but systematic adaptation to changing communicative needs. New technologies require new vocabulary; social changes demand more inclusive terminology; efficiency pressures lead to simplified forms. Rather than viewing these changes as corruption of an ideal standard, we might see them as evidence of language's remarkable ability to evolve with the societies it serves. This perspective allows us to appreciate both the value of shared conventions and the inevitability—even necessity—of ongoing linguistic change.

Chapter 2: Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism: Competing Approaches to Language Standards

The tension between prescriptive and descriptive approaches to language represents fundamentally different ways of understanding how language works and should be evaluated. Prescriptivism focuses on how language "should" be used according to established rules and conventions. It provides guidelines for "correct" usage, often based on formal writing standards, historical precedents, or logical consistency. This approach has dominated traditional grammar education and continues to influence how many people evaluate language use in both educational and professional contexts. Descriptivism, by contrast, examines how language is actually used by real speakers in various contexts. Rather than judging certain usages as "right" or "wrong," descriptive linguists document patterns and variations, recognizing that language naturally changes over time and differs across communities. From this perspective, grammar rules are not imposed from above but emerge organically from how people communicate. What might be considered an "error" from a prescriptive viewpoint may actually represent a systematic pattern in certain dialects or contexts. These different approaches lead to very different conclusions about controversial usage questions. Consider the sentence "Between you and I, this project is doomed." A prescriptivist would mark this as incorrect, insisting on "Between you and me" because prepositions require objective case pronouns. A descriptivist would note that "between you and I" appears frequently in actual usage, even among educated speakers, suggesting it functions as an established idiom in certain contexts. Neither approach is inherently superior; each serves different purposes and reflects different values about language. The prescriptive tradition offers valuable benefits, particularly in establishing shared conventions that facilitate clear communication across diverse contexts. Standardized forms allow writers to reach wider audiences without regional or social barriers to comprehension. They provide learners with clear targets for mastering a language variety that carries social prestige and professional advantages. However, prescriptivism becomes problematic when it presents arbitrary conventions as logical necessities or when it stigmatizes non-standard varieties that function perfectly well in their own contexts. Descriptive approaches provide crucial insights into how language actually works as a social system. They reveal the systematic nature of dialectal differences, demonstrating that non-standard varieties follow consistent patterns rather than representing random errors. They document the processes of language change, showing how innovations spread through communities and eventually become standard. Perhaps most importantly, they highlight how judgments about "correctness" often mask social judgments about speakers rather than linguistic evaluations of their speech. The most productive approach may be one that acknowledges the value of both traditions. Prescriptive guidelines provide useful conventions that facilitate clear communication across diverse contexts, while descriptive insights remind us that language is fundamentally a living, evolving system that adapts to the needs of its users. This balanced perspective allows us to make informed choices about usage based on context, audience, and purpose rather than rigid adherence to rules without understanding their origins or functions.

Chapter 3: Historical Contingency: Why Many Grammar Rules Are Arbitrary

Many grammar rules that speakers struggle to follow emerged not from inherent linguistic necessity but from historical accidents, personal preferences of influential writers, or misguided attempts to impose Latin grammar on English. Understanding this historical contingency helps us approach language standards with greater perspective and flexibility, recognizing that many "rules" lack the logical or functional basis often claimed for them. The prohibition against ending sentences with prepositions exemplifies this arbitrariness. This rule originated with John Dryden, who in 1672 criticized Ben Jonson for writing "The bodies that those souls were frighted from." Dryden offered no linguistic justification; he simply declared the construction improper. Later grammarians adopted this preference, often citing Latin grammar as justification—despite English being a Germanic language with fundamentally different structural patterns. Today, even conservative style guides acknowledge that avoiding sentence-final prepositions often produces awkward constructions that native speakers instinctively reject. Similarly arbitrary is the rule against splitting infinitives—placing words between "to" and the verb, as in "to boldly go." This prohibition emerged in the 19th century, again based on comparisons to Latin, where infinitives consist of single words that cannot be split. Yet English infinitives function differently, and splitting them often produces clearer, more rhythmically balanced sentences. The persistence of this rule despite its lack of functional justification demonstrates how conventions can become entrenched through repetition rather than merit. The history of pronoun prescriptions reveals similar patterns. The insistence that "he" serves as a gender-neutral pronoun emerged in the late 18th century as a deliberate intervention by grammarians who found the long-established singular "they" illogical. This change reflected gendered social assumptions rather than linguistic necessity. Similarly, prescriptions about "who" versus "whom" attempt to maintain case distinctions that have largely disappeared from English, preserving forms that many native speakers struggle to use consistently. Even punctuation rules show this historical contingency. The Oxford comma (the final comma in lists like "red, white, and blue") becomes a matter of heated debate despite being purely conventional. Different style guides make different recommendations, yet advocates on both sides often present their preference as logically necessary rather than acknowledging its arbitrary nature. Such debates reveal how conventions become invested with moral and intellectual significance that far exceeds their linguistic importance. Understanding the historical contingency of grammar rules doesn't mean abandoning all standards. Some conventions genuinely enhance clarity and precision. However, this historical perspective encourages a more thoughtful approach to language standards—one that distinguishes between rules that serve communication and those that merely perpetuate arbitrary preferences. It allows us to maintain useful conventions while approaching questionable rules with healthy skepticism, especially when they conflict with how language naturally functions.

Chapter 4: Power and Prejudice: The Social Dimensions of Language Judgment

Language judgments rarely exist in a social vacuum. When we evaluate someone's speech or writing as "correct" or "incorrect," we often make implicit judgments about their education, intelligence, social class, or cultural background. These evaluations have real consequences, affecting everything from job opportunities to social acceptance. Understanding the relationship between language and power helps us recognize how grammar rules can function as tools of social exclusion or inclusion. The standardization of English has always been intertwined with social hierarchies. As written standards developed, they typically reflected the speech patterns of educated elites, particularly those in centers of political and economic power. Features associated with working-class or regional speech were systematically excluded from what was considered "proper" English. This process naturalized the idea that certain ways of speaking were inherently superior, when in fact they were simply associated with groups that held social power. The result is a system where mastery of standard forms confers advantages that have little to do with communicative effectiveness and much to do with social signaling. Different dialects and varieties of English have developed their own systematic grammatical patterns that may diverge from standard written English. African American English, Appalachian English, and other regional or cultural varieties follow consistent internal rules, even when those rules differ from standardized forms. For instance, the use of double negatives for emphasis ("I don't want nothing") follows predictable patterns in many English varieties and languages worldwide. When speakers of these varieties are judged negatively for following their own dialect's grammar, what's really being evaluated isn't linguistic competence but social identity. Grammar policing often serves as a form of gatekeeping, determining who belongs in certain social, educational, or professional spaces. When people mock others for saying "between you and I" or using "literally" for emphasis, they're often signaling their own membership in an educated class while excluding others. This dynamic becomes particularly problematic when it affects educational outcomes or employment opportunities. Studies have shown that teachers and employers may evaluate identical work differently based solely on the dialect or accent associated with the person who produced it. The relationship between language and identity creates particular challenges for speakers of stigmatized varieties. They often face a double bind: maintaining speech patterns that connect them to their communities risks social and economic penalties, while adopting standard forms may be perceived as rejecting their cultural identity. This pressure to code-switch—to move between different language varieties based on context—represents an additional burden not faced by those whose native speech aligns with prestigious standards. A more equitable approach to language difference would recognize that all varieties of English follow systematic patterns and serve their speakers' communicative needs. It would acknowledge that standard written English provides a useful shared convention for certain contexts while avoiding the implication that it represents inherent linguistic superiority. Most importantly, it would separate evaluations of language from judgments about speakers' intelligence, education, or worth—recognizing that linguistic diversity reflects social history rather than individual capability.

Chapter 5: Context Matters: The Case for Situational Appropriateness

The binary framework of "right" and "wrong" grammar fails to capture the complexity of how language actually functions. A more useful approach considers language choices in terms of appropriateness for specific contexts, audiences, and purposes. This perspective shifts our focus from absolute correctness to effective communication, recognizing that different situations call for different linguistic choices. Formal writing contexts, such as academic papers or business communications, typically adhere more closely to standardized grammar conventions. These conventions serve important purposes—they provide shared expectations that facilitate clear communication across diverse audiences. However, even within formal contexts, conventions evolve over time. The prohibition against split infinitives was once strictly enforced but is now widely accepted in most formal writing. Similarly, starting sentences with conjunctions like "and" or "but" was once forbidden but is now common in professional writing. These changes remind us that even formal standards represent conventions rather than timeless truths. Conversational contexts follow different conventions that prioritize immediacy, connection, and efficiency over strict adherence to formal rules. The use of "like" as a discourse marker, sentence fragments for emphasis, or contractions like "gonna" serves important communicative functions in speech. Judging these features by the standards of formal writing misunderstands their purpose and effectiveness in their native context. What sounds natural in conversation would often seem stilted in speech, while the precision of formal writing might seem unnecessarily complex in casual interaction. Digital communication has developed its own contextual norms that blend features of writing and speech. Email, texting, and social media each have distinct conventions regarding formality, abbreviation, punctuation, and structure. These emerging standards don't represent a decline in language skills but rather the development of new registers adapted to new communicative contexts. The ability to navigate these different digital contexts demonstrates sophisticated linguistic awareness rather than carelessness about "proper" language. The concept of register—different varieties of language used in different situations—helps explain why the same person might write a formal email to a supervisor, then text a friend using entirely different grammar and vocabulary. This code-switching represents linguistic sophistication rather than inconsistency. Effective communicators develop a repertoire of styles they can deploy based on context, demonstrating that linguistic flexibility is actually a form of expertise rather than a failure to maintain standards. A context-driven approach also acknowledges that language standards themselves reflect power dynamics. Questions about who gets to determine what counts as "proper" English, whose language varieties are valued, and how standards are enforced all involve issues of access and equity. Rather than uncritically accepting traditional standards as neutral or natural, we can recognize them as social constructs that serve specific purposes and reflect particular values. This awareness allows us to make more intentional choices about when to adhere to conventions and when to challenge them based on our communicative goals and ethical commitments.

Chapter 6: Linguistic Flexibility: Balancing Convention with Innovation

Language thrives through a dynamic balance between stability and change. Conventions provide the shared understanding necessary for communication, while innovation allows language to adapt to new needs, contexts, and experiences. Developing linguistic flexibility—the ability to navigate this tension thoughtfully—serves both individual communicators and the broader language community. Effective communication requires some degree of conventional usage. Shared vocabulary, grammatical patterns, and punctuation conventions create a foundation that allows diverse speakers to understand each other across differences in background and experience. When writers follow established patterns for organizing arguments or signaling transitions, they reduce the cognitive burden on readers, allowing greater focus on content rather than form. These conventions aren't arbitrary restrictions but practical tools that facilitate connection and understanding. However, rigid adherence to conventions can impede communication when contexts change or new ideas require new forms of expression. Language innovation serves crucial purposes: it allows us to describe new technologies, concepts, and experiences; it creates more inclusive ways of referring to diverse identities; it develops more efficient ways to communicate in changing media environments. From Shakespeare's lexical innovations to contemporary digital communication patterns, language creativity has always been essential to keeping English vital and responsive. The most sophisticated language users develop the ability to judge when convention serves their purposes and when innovation better meets their needs. This judgment depends on multiple factors: the formality of the context, the relationship between communicator and audience, the purpose of the communication, and the conventions of the specific genre or medium being used. A legal document requires strict adherence to established forms to ensure precise interpretation, while creative writing might deliberately break conventions to create particular effects or express new perspectives. Linguistic flexibility also involves recognizing that different communities develop their own conventions that may differ from dominant standards. Professional fields create specialized terminology and stylistic expectations that facilitate communication among experts. Cultural and regional communities develop distinctive patterns that express shared identity and values. Digital platforms generate new conventions for efficient communication within their constraints. Respecting these different conventional systems represents another dimension of linguistic flexibility—the ability to recognize that "appropriate" language varies across different communities and contexts. Developing this flexibility requires moving beyond simplistic notions of correctness toward a more nuanced understanding of language as a social tool. Rather than asking only "Is this correct?" we might ask: "Is this clear to my intended audience?" "Does this language choice serve my communicative purpose?" "Does this form respect the conventions of this particular context?" "Might innovation better express my meaning here?" These questions encourage thoughtful language choices based on communicative effectiveness rather than rigid rule-following or reflexive rebellion against standards.

Chapter 7: Making Informed Choices: A Framework for Navigating Usage Dilemmas

When confronted with usage questions—whether to use "who" or "whom," whether "data" takes singular or plural verbs, whether to split infinitives—we can move beyond simplistic right/wrong dichotomies toward more nuanced decision-making. A framework for making informed language choices might consider multiple factors: the historical context of the rule, actual usage patterns among educated speakers, audience expectations, and our own communicative goals. Historical context provides essential perspective on usage questions. Knowing that prohibitions against sentence-final prepositions originated in misguided attempts to make English conform to Latin grammar helps us evaluate whether such rules serve any useful purpose. Similarly, understanding that the singular "they" has centuries of usage by respected writers, from Shakespeare to Austen, challenges claims that it represents a recent degradation of proper grammar. This historical awareness allows us to distinguish between rules with functional justifications and those based merely on individual preferences or misunderstandings about how English works. Actual usage patterns among educated speakers provide another crucial data point. If a construction like "different than" appears regularly in edited prose by skilled writers, this suggests it has gained acceptance in formal contexts despite prescriptive warnings. Conversely, if a form like "irregardless" remains rare in careful writing, this indicates it hasn't yet achieved broad acceptance in formal registers. Usage dictionaries and corpus studies provide valuable information about these patterns, offering evidence-based guidance rather than mere opinion. Audience awareness should guide our choices, especially in high-stakes communication. If writing a job application or academic paper, we might adhere more closely to conservative usage expectations, recognizing that some readers may judge us harshly for constructions they consider errors. Conversely, in contexts where connection and authenticity matter more than formal correctness, rigid adherence to prescriptive rules might create unnecessary distance between us and our audience. Understanding our readers' likely expectations and values helps us make strategic choices about when to follow conventions and when more innovative forms better serve our purposes. Our own communicative goals also influence these decisions. If clarity is our primary concern, we might choose the most straightforward construction regardless of prescriptive rules—splitting an infinitive when the alternative creates ambiguity, or ending a sentence with a preposition when the alternative sounds awkward. If establishing authority or demonstrating membership in particular professional communities matters, we might adhere more closely to the conventions valued in those contexts. These considerations allow us to make purposeful choices rather than simply following rules without understanding their functions. This framework encourages a more thoughtful approach to language—one that respects useful conventions while recognizing their limitations and contingency. It acknowledges that effective communication requires both structure and flexibility, both shared standards and room for innovation. By approaching language with curiosity rather than anxiety, we free ourselves to focus on what matters most: connecting with others through clear, purposeful expression that respects both our audiences and our own communicative intentions.

Summary

The fundamental insight emerging from this exploration of language authority is that effective communication requires balancing respect for useful conventions with recognition of language's inherent diversity and dynamism. Rather than viewing grammar as a fixed set of rules handed down from authorities, we can understand it as a complex adaptive system that emerges from how communities use language to communicate effectively. This perspective doesn't abandon standards entirely, but rather places them in their proper context as useful conventions that serve specific purposes rather than absolute truths about "correct" language. This more nuanced understanding has profound implications for how we approach language education, professional communication, and everyday interactions. It suggests moving beyond simplistic notions of correctness toward a more sophisticated awareness of how language choices create meaning in specific contexts for particular audiences. By understanding the historical contingency of grammar rules, recognizing the social dimensions of language judgment, appreciating the importance of contextual appropriateness, and developing greater linguistic flexibility, we can make more intentional choices about our own language use while approaching others' choices with greater understanding and respect. This balanced perspective offers a more productive way forward than either rigid prescriptivism or complete linguistic relativism—one that honors both the clarity that conventions provide and the creativity that keeps language vital and responsive to human needs.

About Author

Loading...

Anne Curzan

Anne Curzan is the Geneva Smitherman Collegiate Professor of English Language and Literature, Linguistics, and Education and an Arthur F. Thurnau Professor at the University of Michigan, where she also currently serves as the dean of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.

Read more