If you are a learner of English you are probably used to the idea of studying grammar rules in order to understand and to apply them to your use of the language.\u00a0 This is a perfectly legitimate, and many\u00a0would say necessary, way to help your learning.\u00a0 However, as with any set of rules, we must be wary and recognise when those rules help us and when they are needlessly restrictive.<\/p>\n
In fact, we should make it clear at this stage that English grammar is not actually a set of rules.\u00a0 It is really a way to describe how we use English, an analysis and categorisation of how we communicate with the language.\u00a0 Language use comes before defined grammar and so should have priority.<\/p>\n
In this post I am going to question the sacred text of English grammar from the following viewpoints:<\/p>\n
I hope to make the point that language is fluid and constantly reacting to a changing world; that grammar \u2018rules\u2019 exist (in learning terms) to help us, not as a rigid authoritarian and consequently as a cause of anxiety.<\/p>\n
The historical perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n I am 41 years old.\u00a0 The idea of what constitutes \u2018correct grammar\u2019 for modern English when my parents were my age is quite different from now.\u00a0 Here are some examples:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Interestingly, many of these \u2018rules\u2019 are based on traditions of Latin grammar which don\u2019t really apply to the English language.\u00a0 Another example is a tendency to refer to the \u2018future tense\u2019 when no such tense exists in English as, in reality, instead of using verb endings as in \u2018Latin\u2019 languages we use a combination of present tenses, modal verbs (I will go\u2026, for example) and other phrases to refer to the future.<\/p>\n Another, more modern example, is the use of \u2018fewer\u2019 and \u2018less\u2019.\u00a0 The following example is considered grammatically incorrect:<\/p>\n Less people attended the convention than expected<\/em><\/p>\n The correct form of this would be \u2018fewer people\u2026\u2019 as \u2018fewer\u2019 is used with countable nouns, like people, while \u2018less\u2019 is used with uncountable nouns, like water. \u00a0A key point in this case is that a very large proportion of native speakers (probably a majority) are likely to make the same mistake with no possibility of meaning being misinterpreted.\u00a0 If this is the case, we have to ask ourselves if this mistake really matters.\u00a0 Perhaps the use of \u2018fewer\u2019 will go the way of \u2018whom\u2019 as a formal term for written English.\u00a0 Personally, I think it very likely.<\/p>\n With these examples we can see the \u2018rules\u2019 of grammar running behind real use.\u00a0 History is a force which changes everything.\u00a0 The English language is no exception to this axiom, whether in terms of how we pronounce the language, which words we select to use or the way we put those words together.\u00a0 Grammar rules should respond to language, not the other way round.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The geographical perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n Another force which changes language is location.\u00a0 In the case of, for example, North America or Australia, English has developed in different ways as Anglophone groups divide and form distinct cultural groups.\u00a0 In many cases, for example India or Zimbabwe, colonial occupation fused English with local languages, customs and culture to produce a wide variation in use of English.<\/p>\n An example between English as spoken in the UK and the USA is the use of the present perfect.\u00a0 In the UK one would ask a child:<\/p>\n \u2018Have you done your homework, yet?\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n Whereas, in the USA you are just as likely to hear:<\/p>\n \u2018Did you do your homework, yet?\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n So, Americans in conversation use the present perfect or past simple interchangeably when referring to past events from a present viewpoint.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Another example is from Indian English:<\/p>\n \u2018I am having a cold\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n As opposed to UK English:<\/p>\n \u2018I have a cold\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n This demonstrates the preferred use of the continuous tenses by Indian English speakers reflecting grammatical structures from other languages, such as Hindi, from other parts of their culture.<\/p>\n The point here is that if you have been learning English you may have been presented with \u2018hard facts\u2019 concerning grammar or, if not, you may have asked for them.\u00a0 You may learn English perfectly \u2018by the rules\u2019, but it is then highly likely you will encounter native speakers who break those rules.\u00a0 The fundamental thing here is that the most important aspect of speaking a global language is intelligibility.\u00a0 There are many ways of speaking English, but it is highly problematic to claim that a particular way is incorrect when a group of people are successfully using that \u2018incorrect\u2019 form to communicate meaning.<\/p>\n A common hope concerning English is that a generalised Standard English will emerge to ensure intelligibility at a global level.\u00a0 In fact, that process is already happening as global communication technology and migration mix different forms of English together in a huge variety of locations, social groups and age groups.\u00a0 The more that process continues, the more \u2018prestige\u2019 versions of English, such as those found in the UK and the USA become just another dialect of \u2018World English\u2019.<\/p>\n Each of these ways of speaking English has its own grammar, and of course a learner should learn according to the \u2018English\u2019 they choose to learn.\u00a0 But they should not imagine that theirs is the only set of rules available, or that native speakers don\u2019t make the \u2018mistakes\u2019 that their coursebooks tell them to avoid!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The personal perspective<\/strong><\/p>\n English is a playful language.\u00a0 It is open to adaptation and interpretation in a way that has been fully exploited by authors such as James Joyce (Ulysses), George Orwell (1984) and Anthony Burgess (A Clockwork Orange).\u00a0 Neologisms (new words) have never been as frequent as they are in today\u2019s media and technology-driven environment.\u00a0 Just as common are \u2018nonce\u2019 words, which are words created by an individual to serve a temporary need.\u00a0 An example is an overheard conversation where a person described excess water on a road as a fluddle <\/em>(a combination of \u2018flood\u2019 and \u2018puddle\u2019, with a possible hint of \u2018muddle\u2019).\u00a0 This is a matter of using English in a creative and personal way which can be extended into more \u2018grammatical\u2019 areas.<\/p>\n An example of this is using nouns as verbs.\u00a0 In football it\u2019s possible to say \u2018he headed the ball into the goal\u2019.\u00a0 By extension we can use other parts of the body to score a goal:<\/p>\n He elbowed the ball into the goal<\/em><\/p>\n He kneed the ball into the goal<\/em><\/p>\n He ankled the ball into the goal<\/em><\/p>\n He backed the ball into the goal\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n We might also adopt an adjective as a noun as in the modern expression \u2018my bad\u2019, meaning \u2018my mistake\u2019 in an \u2018ungrammatical\u2019 but entirely intelligible way.\u00a0 In this example someone<\/strong> at some time has used this expression, either originating in or finding its way into mass media and it has now become common currency.<\/p>\n We also use prepositions combined with verbs, adjectives and nouns, in the manner of phrasal verbs, but in a way which is personalised and often temporary.\u00a0 For example, in 2003 the British TV chef Delia Smith claimed to be \u2018all reciped out\u2019.\u00a0 This is not a grammatically or lexically recognised form but all her listeners knew that she meant she had exhausted her stock of recipes.\u00a0 However, this phrase did not become standard in any way and can therefore be considered personally creative.<\/p>\n Sometimes we make decisions on the use of grammar which are based on style or the way the words sound to us.\u00a0 For example, a standard rule in English coursebooks is that the comparative form of one-syllable adjectives ends in \u2013er and that adjectives of two syllables (barring those ending \u00a0in \u2018y\u2019) or more should be preceded by the modifier \u2018more\u2019 .\u00a0 However, we tend to say \u2018more fun\u2019, as \u2018funner\u2019 does not sound right, in the same way as we say \u2018cleverer\u2019 as \u2018more clever\u2019 is just not right somehow.\u00a0 Similarly we should say:<\/p>\n Breaking grammar rules is more common<\/strong> than you think<\/em><\/p>\n But if you listen carefully to a native speaker you are just as likely to hear:<\/p>\n Breaking grammar rules is commoner<\/strong> than you think<\/em><\/p>\n So, we might conclude from this that in some cases our preferences as speakers of English take precedence over the fixed \u2018rules\u2019 giving us a great deal of variation of language use.<\/p>\n As a last example of the personalised and creative take on grammar, here is an advertising slogan from a well-known fast food chain:<\/p>\n I\u2019m lovin\u2019 it<\/em><\/p>\n A coursebook would probably tell you that \u2018love\u2019 is a stative verb and should not be used in the continuous aspect (\u2026ing form).\u00a0 However, this slogan does just that and communicates its meaning very clearly with an added feeling of the immediacy of experiencing something in the moment.\u00a0 Again, this particular transgression has become common in spoken English, leading us to wonder if the grammar is wrong, or the people using the language to successfully communicate (split infinitive!) meaning are wrong.\u00a0 The answer surely has to be that the grammar \u2018rule\u2019 is wrong, or that it simply hasn\u2019t caught up with the language use it is intended to explain.<\/p>\n Perhaps the key point here is that English belongs to the people who use it, whether native speaker or speaker of English as a foreign language, not to a \u2018higher authority\u2019.\u00a0 Once we have covered the need to be intelligible to the people we are speaking to we have a freedom to express ourselves, that may begin with a learner taking a more relaxed attitude to grammar rules and end with a verbally inventive masterpiece like Joyce\u2019s Ulysses, which conforms to few linguistic norms but succeeds in communicating\u00a0an extraordinary amount of information.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Conclusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n With just a few examples we have seen how English grammar, like any set of rules, can lag behind the flexible and ever-changing communication system that it represents.\u00a0 It is tempting, from a learner\u2019s perspective, to count on grammar rules as the ultimate authority which will never let us down, but this attitude can also be a source of anxiety which can limit learning and distract from the true objective of becoming a successful communicator of meaning.\u00a0 Grammar can be a useful framework for understanding and making progress in language learning, but it is not the divine word.\u00a0 If you study English in a class you will probably be used to hearing your teacher say \u2018yes, that is the rule, but\u2026\u2019.\u00a0 There are many, very good reasons for that \u2018but\u2019.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" If you are a learner of English you are probably used to the idea of studying grammar rules in order to understand and to apply…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3484,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[117],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-publica",""],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3483","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3483"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3483\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3484"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/virtualcampus.kingstraining.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n\n
\n Shall \/ will<\/td>\n \u2018Shall\u2019 was the \u2018correct\u2019 way to express future time in the first and third persons.\u00a0 This usage is now very rare<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Singular or plural verb after \u2018none\u2019<\/td>\n \u2018None of the books was<\/strong> there\u2019 was considered the correct form.\u00a0 Now the majority of people would use \u2018were\u2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n \u2018whom\u2019 or \u2018who\u2019<\/td>\n \u2018Whom\u2019 was considered the correct form when it represented the object of a sentence: \u2018that is the man whom you saw\u2019.\u00a0 This word is now extremely rare in spoken English.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n No preposition at the end of a sentence<\/td>\n \u2018That is the person to<\/strong> whom I spoke\u2019 was considered correct.\u00a0 Now we would say \u2018that\u2019s the person I spoke to\u2019<\/strong>.\u00a0 The other form is now generally considered too formal for spoken English<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Different(ly) from<\/strong><\/td>\n \u2018from\u2019 was always considered the correct choice of preposition to use with \u2018different(ly)\u2019.\u00a0 Now you are more likely to hear \u2018to\u2019 or \u2018than\u2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n The split infinitive<\/td>\n To place an adverb between the particle and infinitive form of a verb, as in the famous example from the beginning of every Star Trek episode, \u2018to boldly<\/strong> go where no man has gone before\u2019, was considered incorrect.\u00a0 Now, such a judgement might be considered pedantic.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n