In the previous video in this series about grammar,
we saw that, for a linguist, grammar is
a bit more complex than what we learn in school.
But why?
Grammar’s complicated enough.
Let’s talk about why traditional grammar
is not a good tool for linguists to understand language fully.
[♫ Snap Language theme song ♫]
Hi!
Welcome to Snap Language.
I’m Marc Franco.
When we talk about grammar,
we understand it as a set of rules that speakers use to put words together
to produce sentences that others can understand.
So, an ungrammatical sentence is one that’s impossible in a language.
This sentence, “The boy chased the dog,” is grammatical in English.
So is “The dog chased the boy.”
“Chased dog boy” is ambiguous at best.
The grammatical structure in an English sentence like that
is that the something or someone placed before the verb
is the subject, or the one acting on what comes after the verb.
That’s the object of the verb.
In “chased dog boy,” you’re putting these words together in a way that
violates the basic structure of English (subject-verb-object),
so the sentence is ungrammatical.
A verb-subject-object word order is possible in some languages,
but not in English.
Then, what if someone says,
“You ain’t done nothing!”...?
Traditional grammar will tell you that this sentence is ungrammatical.
However... you understand what the speaker means, right?
In a linguistic analysis, the word order is fine: subject-verb-object.
So, what’s the problem?
In standard English grammar, you shouldn’t use “ain’t” for “have not,”
nor should you use a double negative, so “not done nothing”
is considered ungrammatical.
But many people say that, and you understand what they mean.
[SPEAKER] ”You ain‘t done nothing! You know what I‘m saying...like...”
In other words, there is an underlying grammar
in this sentence… from a linguistic perspective.
For many English speakers, “ain’t” is just another contraction,
and double negatives are fine.
[MAN]: “... And I ain’t never done nothing like this before.”
[MARC FRANCO] In fact,
many other languages have double negatives in their standard grammars.
When you say it’s “ungrammatical,” “wrong,” or “bad English,”
you’re using standard grammar rules to judge the speaker.
You should take a look at the video addressing stereotyped perceptions.
The link’s in the description.
Notice that, for a linguist, an “ungrammatical” sentence
means that it violates the grammar rules shared in a linguistic community...
it doesn’t matter what the rules are.
It’s an impossible sentence.
For a traditional grammarian, an “ungrammatical” sentence means
it doesn’t conform to the rules they decided speakers should follow
it doesn’t matter how people actually use the language.
Wait!
Before you go leave an angry comment in defense of “good grammar”
and “proper English,” let me make something clear.
Traditional grammar is useful to create a standard
that everyone can follow.
In a situation where, for example, you’re writing an academic paper,
you want to make sure that your language use
will be as clear as possible...
You want to make sure your readers share the same set of rules
so there’s no ambiguity.
But, if someone uses nonstandard grammar on Twitter?...
Oh, relax... [chuckles]
Traditional grammar dates back to some 2,500 years ago
in ancient Greece and India.
Around 100 B.C.E, the Alexandrians developed Greek grammar
“to preserve the purity of the language.”
Dionysius Thrax wrote a treatise called “The Art of Grammar” where,
among other things, he described the parts of speech in Greek:
pronouns, verbs, prepositions, and so forth.
This analytical study of language was rooted in the idea
that “good language” should reflect
the prestige of good literature, philosophy, rhetoric, and science.
This early work by the Greek influenced Roman scholars,
who adapted it to Latin.
As grammar evolved over time, it kept its focus on formal, literary language.
We can still see this influence today.
Grammar was seen as a way to prevent the language from “degenerating.”
Some people still see it that way...
This approach to grammar is known as “prescriptive,”
that is, grammar is supposed to tell you how you “must” use the language.
For a linguist, analyzing the language includes all of its varieties,
not just the literary or prestige language variety.
This is known as the “descriptive” approach to understanding grammar.
Without passing judgment, a linguist observes a linguistic phenomenon
and tries to understand it using the tools available in linguistics.
So, back to “You ain’t done nothing!”
It has an underlying grammar structure, and it makes sense.
When you say, “but this is bad English,” well, you’re judging it as “bad”
according to the rules of prescriptive, standard English grammar.
If you want to follow
the ancient tradition of Greek and Roman grammarians,
there are rules you must follow in formal, written, literary English...
But this approach does not explain language use
in informal, spoken, everyday English.
You could say standard grammar creates consistency in the use of language.
For example, we know that sentences in English must have a subject and a verb
(and the verb sometimes calls for an object).
Okay.
That makes sense...
In “chased the dog,” you’re left wondering who did, right?
So, are these sentences grammatical?
— Can you help me?
— Sorry, busy today.
Here you have a subject... and a verb with an object.
How about this sentence?...
No subject... no verb!
But wait... are you left wondering who’s sorry?...
Of course not!
You know the speaker’s sorry.
And you know the speaker means “I am busy today.”
You even understand the speaker’s saying,
“I cannot help you because I’m busy today.”
In formal writing you’d need a complete sentence like
“I am busy today; therefore, I cannot help you.”
In everyday, spoken language,
“Sorry.
Busy today” communicates the message just fine.
By the way, like... share... subscribe.
See?
Communication without complete sentences.
[professorial tone] “In an interrogative sentence,
you must place the verb or an auxiliary verb
before the subject.”
[normal tone] How about...
-- How did you like the cookies I gave you?
-- Delicious!
-- You ate them all?
Here, you have the auxiliary verb before the subject to ask a question.
Great...
But here?...
Well, the subject is not after the verb, but
it’s still an interrogative sentence...
Perfectly fine.
You do that in English when your question
is actually asking someone to confirm information.
How about those “made-up rules?”
[professorial tone] “Thou shalt not split infinitives in English”
[SPEAKER]: “These changes have the potential to greatly improve
regulatory outcomes”
[NASA SPEAKER] “... to boldly go where no probe
has gone before.”
[MARC FRANCO] ...or “Never end a sentence with a preposition.”
Why not?
[INTERVIEWER] “... Last question from me for now:
What are three apps you cannot live without?”
[MARC FRANCO]: How would you say that according to standard grammar?
“... What are three apps without which you cannot live?”
In spoken language?
Nah, I don’t think so.
Mind you, a lot of these “weird” prescriptive grammar rules
can be traced back to the old analysis of language based on Greek or Latin.
For example, it’s impossible to split an infinitive in Latin.
An English infinitive has two words: “to” and “go.”
In Latin, “to go” is “ire.”
There’s nothing to split.
So, over time, European grammarians tried to fit the rules of Latin and Greek
into English... we ended up with these rules that don’t really make much sense,
so speakers just ignore them.
In fact, the more different the standard is
from the way people actually use the language,
the less likely it is that they’ll pay much attention to the standard.
So, in that sense, standard grammar is supposed to create consistency,
but sometimes it ends up causing more trouble than it’s actually worth.
And now a word from our sponsor...
[♫ happy music ♫]
Okay.
Back to work...
Again!
There’s nothing wrong with having a standard grammar.
But remember that we adjust how we use the language
depending on the social situation.
If you’re writing a formal essay, and you want to use “who” and “whom,”
go nuts!
If you’re talking to your friends about a party and someone says,
“Who’re you going with?”
would it bother you?
Would you expect them to say “Whom are you going with?”
Oh, wait!
Who, whom...
and you can’t end a sentence with a preposition...
“With whom are you going?”
Over time, there’s less and less people who pay attention to... um...
Over time, there are fewer and fewer people
who pay attention to the distinction between who and whom...
and certainly no one cares if you end a sentence with a preposition.
These rules are sorely outdated and, especially in an informal social context...
well, they just don’t belong there.
Language changes.
Like it or not, language evolves...
Grammarians eventually come to accept these changes
and incorporate them into the grammar as the “new standard.”
But language changes fairly quickly, while traditional grammar moves
at a snail’s pace.
I’m in no way implying that we should just forget about grammar altogether...
It’s just that grammar has different definitions for grammarians and linguists.
If you need a standard to follow, standard grammar is the way to go.
It’s just a tool... but it creates problems when it’s used as kind of a weapon
when it triggers stereotyped perceptions.
(Watch that video!)
For a linguist, grammar is a linguistic phenomenon.
The members of any linguistic community share a complex system of rules
that governs how sentences are put together.
Period.
For a linguist, grammar is a feature of the language.
For a grammarian, grammar is a tool that prescribes ONE way
to apply that naturally occurring grammar.
[playing a descriptivist]
But wait!
Aren’t you a linguist?
Aren’t you a fan of descriptive grammar?
Ugh!
Descriptivists.
[speaking for self] No!
Standard grammar’s fine, I just...
[playing a descriptivist] What?
So, you want to preserve
the purity of the language?
That’s so elitist!
[playing self; bewildered] Uh...
I... um
This is a great segue into one of the topics in this series:
the so-called feud between prescriptivists and descriptivists.
That’s a fine needle to thread... so, first, we’ll talk about
when standard grammar goes awry.
It should be a fun video before we get into
something a bit more controversial.
There ain’t no better time than now to like and share this video
with other language lovers.
And be sure you hit the bell when you subscribed
so you get all notifications about new videos.
Thanks for stopping by and watching this video.
See you in the next one...
Bye!