The systematic and expressive nature of the grammar and pronunciation patterns of the African American vernacular has been established by numerous scientific studies over the past thirty years. Characterizations of Ebonics as “slang,” “mutant,” “lazy,” “defective,” “ungrammatical,” or “broken English” are incorrect and demeaning.
When this resolution was widely agreed to, the internet was still quite young. The term blogging wasn’t even coined, Twittering was nearly 10 years away and text messaging in North America was pretty much unheard of. Oh, and my son – who is quite representative of what we call Digital Nomads – was not yet 4 years old. A community that spans a country, without the web to drive a vernacular, had established a new dialect widely enough used to be brought to the attention of a ’society of linguists’ in a Chicago meeting that ostensibly put a stamp of approval on its existence. I’m not going to start to examine what the validation means, but I do think it is an incredibly awesome thing that this happened 13 years ago.
Grammar has always been an awkward thing for me. This is mostly due to the pressure I feel from the existence of what I (and many others) call the grammar police. Hell, I’ve even mis-spelled the word (eg. Grammer). As a blogger, there isn’t a post that goes up that isn’t riddled with over-zealous commas and dangling participles not to mention the mis-spelling of a word here and there (it’s/its or effect/affect and the like). But I am writing in my own voice, usually a casual one, in order to allow the ideas to flow. To stop and think about my grammar is to stop that flow of ideas. Sometimes I read the post over after I’m finished to make sure it’s understandable, but even then I’ll miss words and sentence structures that are amiss. That’s not my strength. That’s why I had a damn fine editor for my book.
But whether I miss a typo or misuse a word doesn’t much matter to me. If I was speaking to someone F2F about a subject, our conversation would be full of pauses and misused words and grammatical errors and I like to think of my style of writing as conversational. The only thing I hope is that the core message of my post makes sense. And that is the way I read posts as well. Unless there is a glaring error (I laughed heartily over techtonic shits), I never stop to think “Should there be a comma there?” I just read the post. Which is why the linguistic shifts that are happening right now are exciting to me.
Is there an equivalent to Ebonics in online culture? Or are we still speaking in ’slang’ or ‘lazy’ or ‘ungrammatical’? I’m not talking about throwing all grammar to the wind. We still need basic pieces of the structure of language to be able to understand one another, but we can certainly stop being so damned uptight about it. There is a point at which we stop helping people improve their grammar and start being downright annoying. Judging someone on their mastery of the language rather than the content of their message is another form of classism.
Consider these examples:
- As an Anglophone living in Montreal, my Francophone friends are kind enough to speak with me in English. As we talk, many of them speak with frequent grammatical errors, none of which register with me as significant. Sure, I could spend the entire conversation being really annoying and correcting them in order to “teach” them better English, but that would be jarring to the conversation, I understand what they are saying anyway and (the most glaringly obvious) I’m actually the ignoramus who hasn’t learnt enough of their language to put together a full sentence, so I should keep my trap shut.
- I’m a big fan of The Wire, which takes place in Baltimore and includes in-depth dialogues from the police, the people who live in a poor neighbourhood (including the drug trade), politicians and news reporters. They all speak English, but different dialects of it. Switching back and forth between the dialects made me dizzy in the beginning of watching the series, but made me smarter by the end of it. Why? Like any other aspect of culture, linguistics tells a story. The politicians speak English, the police speak in a cross between Ebonics and English and the drug runners speak in pure Ebonics. The police build a bridge. Certain characters of each group cross over. The CTO of the drug organization, Stringer Bell, speaks English while his boss, Avon Barksdale, speaks Ebonics. Power structures appear between the languages. Classism and racism run high beyond skin colour and through language. I became smarter about the culture because I started to understand all dialects.
- About 3 years ago, my son (now nearly 17 years old) began texting rather than calling me. At first I had no clue what he was trying to ’say’ to me, using oodles of acronyms (ROFL, WTF) and abbreviations (ur, l8, 4). I thought he was writing me in code. But slowly I learned the acronyms and abbreviations myself and found them 2b not only useful for quick typing, but useful for relating to my son. When I typed his language, I gained his respect. I also began to understand the breadth of change in language and culture that we are about to encounter.
- Business language has long been riddled with acronyms, abbreviations and buzzwords to describe broader concepts. Depending on the context of using this language, you sound either brilliant or like a ‘douche’. In the boardroom, I learnt, structuring a sentence with a series of buzzwords and acronyms, such as “We need to broaden our horizons, breaking through the clutter with a value add to this paradigm shift while using best of breed practices to capture mindshare and increase our ROI” will bring on respect and promotion, whereas if I used that in a blogpost or tweet, I would be laughed at and called names. The use of any ONE of those buzzwords would strip me of my street cred. Alternatively, speaking in my son’s lingo in the boardroom brings puzzled looks and potential discredit to my message. It will be interesting to see how the business world will cope with the Digital Nomads because as Jack Lynch says in A Lexicographer’s Dilemma, “the crimes-against-the-language rate is going to skyrocket here in the electronic age“.
- Something I learnt during the editing process on my book is that, apparently, Random House has a very different grammatical system than Penguin than does Wiley than does the Department of English at Penn State. Funny thing that none of the experts can really agree on sentence structure, punctuation and proper spellings and capitalization of things like the Internet…or is it the internet…or maybe they prefer the Web? Who knows, but after having an outside editor look at my manuscript, everything changed and then changed BACK once returned to Random House. What a funny bunch the English experts are! What I love about English grammar standards is that there are so many to choose from.
David Mitchell in a rather fun column describes the reality of the rules of the English language:
I should have said that correctness in language is vital to avoid unintentional ambiguity. But it usually isn’t. No one ever accidentally bought more potatoes than planned because they were told to buy less rather than fewer. Of all the times I’ve typed: “Hopefully see you then” in an email, no one has ever subsequently complained that, when they saw me, I didn’t seem hopeful. We sticklers say we fear confusion of meaning but it’s the feeling that we’ve learnt and obeyed a set of rules that doesn’t matter that really spooks us.
But goes on to say:
In the end, though, the rules do matter – it’s just that obeying them doesn’t. They need to be there to create a tension between conservatism and innovation.
And I (sorta) agree. The absence of rules is not the way to approach English grammar either. The tension is good to keep us at least partially understanding the gist of what we are trying to get across.
Language changes and morphs, both resulting from and driving cultural shifts. If it didn’t we’d still be speaking in Olde English like we did a goodly length in times past (p.s. there were way more commas back then). On top of that – and much like web ’standards’ – people disagree on what is proper and up to date anyway (wait, does up-to-date have hyphens?). There really isn’t one source anymore, nor should there be. There isn’t one English anyway. Not in the same country. Not even in the same city. But somehow, unlike the Tower of Babel, we manage to survive it. Is it the rules, like Mitchell points out, that keep us from throwing one another to our deaths? Perhaps, but I’d like to think it’s more than a group of the highest ranking grammar police ordaining from above us all that keeps us understanding one another. I’d like to think it’s a sense of community, where when I say Staycation, even the first time you’ve ever heard it, you understand what I’m getting at. I did. And it stuck.
[p.s. I know that some of you will think you are being smart alecs by correcting some part of this post's grammar.]
January 3rd, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Coming from a country with a wide variety of Spanish (our mother language)dialects I have learned to value the cultural charge that grammar variations have. First of all grammar variations can come from the way we learn to speak (Chomsky explains it better). We sometimes learn to articulate our language in ways that are different according to our social class, location and level of education (among other things). Sometimes grammatical variations come as a form of ID that we try to create to differentiate us from the rest. Numerous linguistics agree that there is no one language and that it’s in a constant evolution. It’s not that there are no rules, but rather that new rules are being created every minute as old ones are tossed out (and this happened differently in many cultures creating different versions of the same language).
Language is part of our culture and therefore is going to change with it. As long as the message goes by and we are aware that it’s totally natural that different people have different variations of our language we will be able to understand each other clearly (or die trying). Language will be used as a cultural differentiator for a long time so we better get used to embracing the changes, just like we embrace the change in technology (HTML, XHTML, HTML5 …..we are constantly learning new programming languages; why shouldn’t be constantly learning the new versions of English?)
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Fascinating topic! As you point out, spoken communication, particularly casual, F2F communication between friends or acquaintances rarely “follows the rules”, and there’s rarely a duly deputized member of the “grammar police” present to call foul when participles are dropped, or dangled, or whatever. Even if there were, the quirks of the English language make it easier to hide when we don’t follow “the rules” – affect/effect, to/too/two, etc. can sound the same, and as long as the other person understands what we’re saying, what’s the harm?
For centuries, formal written communication that was intended for mass consumption was largely curated by editors and “professional” writers, for whom the rules of grammar, spelling, etc. were part of how they learned and plied their trade. Now that the Web has blown that model apart, and everyone can publish their thoughts to a large chunk of the population on the planet, I wholeheartedly agree that the “rules” of grammar are going to get bent, broken and rearranged, faster than they ever have before. Kind of like the way a lot of things are getting bent, broken and rearranged, in this new world we’re a part of.
January 3rd, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I like this column. I don’t think it is nearly so interesting to wisely obey language rules, as it is to wisely disobey them. The use of dialect and relaxed (meaning, non-rigorous) application of the rules of Standard Average English can make some people nervous — even angry. Such people are not providing a valuable public service when they attempt to correct; they are simply exacting control — usually because they are in need of feeling some control.
I think one of the most important evolutionary dialects in the English language caused by the internet is the emergence of l337 (leet-speak), which describes language, punctuation, spelling and grammar adopted by online gamers, but has come to also describe the ROFL/LOL language of texts. It’s not clear to me that 1337 will effect language any more than any generational slang (“Dude, that’s bad!”); but I suspect it will, because it emerged first and exclusively as a written slang (as opposed to spoken slang) and I don’t think there are any other examples of such widely practiced slangs which emerged first in writing. With leet, it is possible the internet will be at the root of the largest re-arrangement of the English language since widespread cheap offset printing necessitated a standard grammar and spelling in the first place.
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
I’m afraid the Ebonics issue is a tale of Chicago politics, not legitimate linguistic study. The language of black Americans is quite splintered by region just as any other regional affectations, and taken as a whole is far less standardized than many other US English dialects that are simply considered poor grammar.
Nonetheless, regardless of recognition, there is always a constant back and forth struggle between what is considered proper and simple recognition of the way people talk. Standards must evolve, but the farther degraded the standard, the less we can communicate outside our circles and the less our records mean to future generations. If you speak, write, or teach some one to speak or write, you have a responsibility to do your best to adhere to a standard as much as possible without stamping on cultures or feelings. The social enforcement of a linguistic standard is, overall, a good thing. It’s evolution is inevitable and serves a purpose, but a balance must be struck between the socially organic progression and good sense (should the natural progression ever depart from it–and it often does).
I grew up in a family that spoke the regional dialect, as did every one around me. I held myself to a higher standard, and the dialect is not mine. Still, I put on the dialect to speak to them, because it makes them more comfortable. I put on the dialect for effect or humor. I occasionally use bits of it when I feel the standard doesn’t prohibit it or where I feel the standard is flawed and should be fixed. I do not think that the dialect should ever act as a replacement or equivalent for the standard.
The internet gives the opportunity for language to degrade or evolve faster than ever. Now, more than ever, we have a responsibility to determine and adhere to standards.
Are there different standards? Yes. There will never be complete agreement on every issue. That’s simply more reason to be concerned with the standards.
January 4th, 2010 at 12:54 am
If you ever decide to go and visit the many spanish speaking countries around the world you will not have any problems with communicating with the locals of the area you visit if you learn spanish.
January 4th, 2010 at 4:55 am
I love this. Thanks.
I used to work at an information desk of a rural library. I found that more people were comfortable with me if I said, “Can I help you” when they approached. “Can” was much more commonly used in local speech than “may” and put people at ease with me. In this case, getting to the heart of my customers needs was paramount. Not being most correct.
January 4th, 2010 at 5:52 am
Tara,
Thanks for the post. I screw up and make all kinds of grammatical mistakes all the time. I re-read my posts and don’t always catch all the errors. But I would like to think that my posts are readable. I do agree that we have to have rules or anarchy rules. On a few occasions, I stopped reading an article or blog post because it was filled with spelling errors and grammatical errors. The writers didn’t have even the basics. Maybe I am being unfair and a bit of a snob, but in each instance it was taking too much energy for me to decipher what was being said. I just didn’t have that kind of time.
I think a certain level of competency in writing is expected, but what that level is is debatable.
Avil Beckford
http://www.twitter.com/avilbeckford
January 4th, 2010 at 8:45 am
And is there nothing more scream-worthy than when you’ve poured your heart and soul, in addition to your intellect, into a strategy (not a novel for publication! a strategy!) only to have the reviewer’s reply contain a list of grammatical errors. Ugh. Like Bob Rutledge says, it is a form of control. (Sure, note my grammar errors, but at the end please — after you’ve provided some thoughtful feedback on the strategy.)
January 4th, 2010 at 10:55 am
If you’re writing for public consumption, isn’t it only a matter of respect for your readers to ensure that you’re using proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation? Sort of like dressing up for someone’s wedding, or putting on a pair of nice shoes for a first date.
When my son sends me a text message, it’s private, he knows his audience, and what he writes (and the way he writes it) isn’t going to tell me anything about him that I don’t already know.
On the other hand, when someone I don’t know writes — not only writes, but publishes — something, those words are often the only connection I have with the author. And if my only interaction with someone is a demonstration that the person did not care enough to even check the spelling and grammar of a document, I’m necessarily going to infer that he or she probably doesn’t care enough to check facts, or to base opinions on anything meaningful, either.
Established grammar is a common ground where all may gather. Vernacular excludes those not in the subset of people who use that vernacular, and your argument that it “doesn’t much matter to me” is dismissive of others. It may not matter much to you if you drive 95 miles per hour on the highway. No one else cares if you’re doing it on your private land, but doing it on public roads shows recklessness and a lack of respect to other drivers, as well as a lack of respect of the “rules”. Are the rules correct? The point is moot. They are the rules. If you have an argument to change the rules, that’s a different issue. But arguing that they shouldn’t exist at all, or shouldn’t apply to you because they’re hard to follow is specious.
“…none of the experts can really agree on sentence structure, punctuation and proper spellings and capitalization of things like the Internet…or is it the internet…or maybe they prefer the Web.” What you’re referring to here a matter of usage or style, which most grammarians and editors will fume about forever. Usage and style are the grey (gray?) area were there is no absolute right or wrong, there’s only right or wrong within a particular context. I’m confident that no professional editor would agree that misspellings, typos, or botched grammar is ever all right in any context. Usage and style, on the other hand, they’ll argue about until the cows come home.
All this explains why publishers employ editors. If nothing else, it shows respect for the reader, as well as respect for what you have to say. If you want other people to respect your writing, you have to show your writing — and your readers — some respect, first.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Tara–very interesting discussion here. I dated a guy who always stopped me and corrected my English (and I’m a native English speaker). I eventually shut up/shut down, became guarded in speaking and conversation was impossible. I turned into a listener only…relationship ended. It was a power play, and in my opinion, a stupid one which served no purpose except to make me feel incredibly self-concious and him to feel superior. We understood each other perfectly in a linguistic sense, but definately not in a “real” sense. He has a PhD and enjoyed talking about the differences between classes and language usage. In a negative way…yet claimed to be a Marxist. (The irony…)
I lived in France during one of the “linguistic purity purges”–e.g. trying to force “le weekend” out of the language. It may have worked for newspapers like Le Monde, but had no discernable effect on my native French speaking friends.
Language is for and about communication. Good communication is getting your point across, understanding and being understood…I only correct a non-native English speaker’s grammar IF ASKED to do so, and even then will do so judiciously. In my experience, Grammar Nazis often come off as elitist and, to put it bluntly, show-offs. Again, conversation/communication suffers.
Tying good grammar to one’s socio-economic class is annoying at best and racist/bigoted at worst. Being interupted for using an “I” instead of a “me”, especially when one commonly hears both, does not constitute rewarding conversation. When the implication, whether implicit or explicit, is that the middle and upper classes speak English (or any other language) perfectly, and common grammatical errors are only found in the lower or working classes, is elitist. (and untrue–who does set the standard for perfect grammar? what is the infallible source of proper, ever expanding, organic English? and what about the differences between written and spoken language?)
@ spanish classes: Standardized verb conjugations are important, but nouns change a great deal from country to country. I learned “popote” meant straw (drinking straw) which is fine in Mexico, but unknown in Spain. Durazno (peach) is great in Mexico and unknown in Spain (melocoton). Gua-gua can mean bus in one country and baby in another. I’ve traveled a lot in many different Spanish speaking countries and constantly learn new nouns. Ditto for English–lorry for truck, boot for trunk in the UK, etc.
Language is used to communicate. Effective communication does not depend on exact and “proper” grammar, but on the principle of, “am I making my point? am I understanding you?” That is often difficult enough without complicating conversation (or blog comments, or Twitter tweets) with the added stress of internally checking your grammar before speaking, or vetting your English via a dictionary before conversational writing. And there is no shame in asking for clarification, or being asked for clarification.
(Off soapbox!)
January 4th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Of course, the irony is, even I had a typo in my comment.
No one’s perfect. But it certainly doesn’t hurt to try. Let the flames commence!
January 4th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
@Kerri And the bigger irony is that I didn’t even notice it and understood you perfectly!
January 4th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
I oscillate between denouncing the grammar police and enacting the occasional grammatical citizen’s arrest when someone (who should know better – or when I am simply in a bad mood) smacks me upside the eyeballs with a glaring abuse of proper English (unless, of course, it turns the text into something sublimely hilarious, e.g. “Tectonic Shits”).
Yes, homonyms can be a blogging bane – spell checker can’t help you when you misspell a word into a correctly spelled other word, that as your own editor you don’t catch by reading the post aloud since it still sounds right.
I am often known to overuse commas, mainly because I am inserting conversational-style pauses into my writing – and especially my blogging.
In my industry (computer science), we all too often play “buzzword bingo” where we are supposed to know what all sorts of acronyms stand for (and most people are afraid to ask for fear of looking stupid).
It always reminds me of that scene from the movie Good Morning, Vietnam: “Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn’t we keep the PC on the QT? Because if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we’d all be put out in KP.”
Whenever I want to be sure I am getting grammar right, I just do whatever Grammar Girl (aka Mignon Fogarty) tells me to do – it just makes my writing life easier, and she actually makes grammar fun!
As for there not being one English – I completely agree. Blogging has brought my writing to parts of the world it wouldn’t otherwise have been able to reach. Just the differences between American English and British English are enough to lead to whacky exchanges even when both sides of the conversation are “grammatical correct in the English language.”
Thanks for sharing a great post.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:54 am
On the issue of ‘the lamentable decay of our language from its glorious past’ I recommend the ‘Unfolding of Language’ by Guy Deutscher
http://www.unfoldingoflanguage.com/
Decay (in the sense of decreased grammatical rigour) is only half the story…
January 30th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Tara,
You so get it. It can be incredibly frustrating to spend enormous amounts of time and energy writing reports that people glance at. As a headhunter who is very passionate about representing exceptional Talent I LOVE to use exclamation marks!! and can be very expressive in my commentary. In the so-called corporate world I actually think people want to read something that is REAL not just repetitive buzzword crap.
Way to go!!!!!!!!!
MsCarol
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Saw your blog bookmarked on Digg.I love your site and marketing strategy.