It's not your grandmother's grammar!

Grammar!

A vaguely unpleasant word for most people,  I would imagine. Disturbing images come to mind. Fill-in-the-blank worksheets.  A strict high school English teacher.  A heartfelt written essay returned bleeding red ink.  A momentary doubt as to whether to use 'lay' or 'lie'. Do I say, "It is I." or "It's me"? And all those rules in grammar books!  Even if a person could memorize them, applying them in the right circumstances would take more time than we have in today's rush-rush world.

But a few of you out there may have already joined the ranks of the Grammar Police.  To this enforcement agency, it is a matter of pride to study traditional usage rules, and, more especially, to use them to correct everyone who doesn't follow them.  Isn't the world "going to hell in a hand basket" if  a preposition ends up at the end of a sentence or an infinitive gets split?  Maybe not.

It may surprise you to know that in Linguistics, the scientific study of language, the type of grammar described above is of minimal importance.  It is labeled as "prescriptive grammar".   This traditional view of grammar "right vs. wrong" belongs to the world of copy editors, English instructors, and overzealous parents (not to mention a few acquaintances who want to prove that they are smarter than you are).

I would like to introduce you  to a much more challenging view of grammar, known as "descriptive grammar". As the name implies, linguists describe the language that real people produce in real circumstances and use it as material to explore what may be happening in the human brain.

Take for instance the sentence "I ain't goin' to do nothing for nobody." Did you just take out your red pen for correction?  Yes, those of us who have gone through the American educational system know that 'ain't' is not acceptable in polite society, 'going' needs a 'g' at the end, and that "doing nothing for nobody" means that you are really going to do something for someone because two negatives equal a positive (in mathematics at least).  So a prescriptivist merely labels the sentence as WRONG.  A descriptivist, however, looks more analitically at the sentence.

The much maligned 'ain't'' is a modified contraction of "I am not". After all, there is nothing unacceptable about "he isn't" or "we aren't.  Do some speakers prefer 'ain't' because it is a natural extension of the subconscious (in the brain)  rule that allows us to combine a form of the verb 'to be' with a negative word? Do some speakers pile up negative words ('not,' 'nothing,' 'nobody') for emphasis?  Speakers of Spanish and Portuguese string negative words in sentences without compunction.  (No voy a hacer nada para nadie.  Eu não vou fazer nada para ninguém.)

So the next time you hear a grammar "error," it may be an opportunity for some deeper thinking.  A linguist's view of grammar opens up a whole world of discovery of the workings of the human brain.  It  is definitely not your grandmother's grammar!