Language as Transient: When Syntax Matters and When it Doesn't

When I was younger, I was absolutely obsessed with learning the “correct” syntax for the English language, and would make constant mental judgements of the grammar and usage of those around me, sometimes even using it as a major factor in my estimations of their mental fitness. I even wore this as a badge of honor for a while.

I’d say around seven years ago — when I was fifteen, for those of you keeping score at home –I began to re-evaluate my position, as I found reasons to constantly challenge* the rigid set of rules that determine what is “correct”.** As more evidence surfaced, and I challenged the status quo, I started to think about why the status quo wasn’t effective enough. In the end, I decided that the ruling bodies that determine what is “correct” are too sluggish in doing so, and that language is evolving faster than they can make sense of.

Most people become more stubborn as they age. So, let’s suppose that a given person’s opinions about language were pretty much set in stone at around 30 years old. That means this person has around 50 more years to cling to those rigid beliefs — but over the course of 50 years, the vernacular changes drastically. That’s why there are so many people who are disgruntled about the way the language is, in their eyes, being abused. That which was once pure to them (i.e. when our example was 30) is being tainted, non-words are becoming words, and old words are being redefined. The only way to relieve such a person of their*** subbornness tends to be to an appeal to authority, such as pointing out the new entry of a word in the dictionary the person most respects. I call these people late adopters — they actually refuse to reconsider their stance until the ruling bodies have already reconsidered, revised, and re-published their stance.

I do not believe that language should be free of rules. Quite the contrary: I believe that, in the interest of fostering clear communication, it is important to maintain syntactical standards. But I feel that these standards should be adaptable enough to accomodate the transient nature of the language they govern. I think less weight should be placed on minor infractions of these standards, especially when the infractions in no way cloud the meaning of the speaker or writer. For instance, understanding the distinction between “your” and “you’re” is still important, because using the wrong one can cloud meaning. But the rule stating that writers must never start a sentence in a conjunction, like I’ve done twice in this paragraph, is obsolete.

Rules are a means to an end. Rules exist to govern behavior so that a certain goal, for instance peace or communication, can be achieved. In all areas where there are rules, a problem I’ve seen in a lot of conformists (and especially detail-oriented conformists) is that they allow their means to become their end: they decide that the rules must be followed at all times, even silly ones that are no longer necessary or sufficient to achieving that end, and then they defend those rules to the bitter end (ten bucks for my crappy pun, thanks). Stubborn so-called grammarians are among these sheep-like rule followers. But let me reiterate: I am not a language anarchist! My big picture view is that language syntax exists to make sure that communication is clear, and as such I respect the need for language syntax. But many people seem to think it exists for some higher purpose, because they follow it at all costs — even when the rules actually cloud communication! This was lampooned in a brilliant scene in one Mike Judge film, wherein an officer describes the victim as the guy “off in whose trailer they were whacking”, referencing blind obedience of the rule that no sentence should ever end in a preposition. Obscene or not, if this example doesn’t make it very clear how blind adherence to language rules can actually cloud communication, then what will?

*I believe that split infinitives should be allowed because it feels so awkward to avoid them. Also, because Picard uses one at the beginning of every single episode, and I have intensely blind faith in Picard’s decisions.

**In that last sentence, I made what some would consider to be a syntactical error by failing to enclose the trailing period in my quotation marks (while it would be silly to enclose the period within parenthetical asides such as this one). Further, the quotation marks syntax already makes such allowances for question marks and semicolons, but not periods. I think that it’s about time this awkward and inconsistent rule be destroyed. Most computer programmers with language aptitude share my opinion that, if we’re going to enforce a syntax, we should at least be consistent.

***I am a supporter of the singular they — not that it needs my support, as its heavy usage indicates that its eventual widespread acceptance is inevitable, just like that of “snuck” or “apron” was. It may not happen in my lifetime or yours, but it will happen.