Are you a grammar nerd?

Does the term "grammar nerd" describe the way you think about language correctness?  If you are unsure, you may want to test yourself on these signs from Grammarly (available on Facebook and Twitter).

As much as I hate to admit it, I checked off nine of the ten signs.  (I had to look up No. 6, "what an Oxford comma is," and yes, now I have an opinion about the Oxford comma - completely unnecessary.)  

The realization that I act like a grammar nerd clashes directly with my image of myself as a linguist, that is, a person interested in studying human speech.  Linguists scoff at those who spend their lives slavishly following what are known as prescriptive grammar rules. 

Prescriptive grammar rules are rules for the "proper" use of language.  They generally appear in written form in grammar textbooks, editing manuals, and can be heard coming from the mouths of English instructors and diligent parents of young children. A well-known grammar rule (broken every day by countless speakers) is, "Don't end a sentence with a preposition."

Linguists are interested in descriptive grammar rules that are explanations of real language everyday people use.  As a matter of fact, linguists find "errors" fascinating. They are interested in what people say and how they say it, not in order to correct it, but to learn more about how language works in the human brain.    Somehow that goal seems more worthy of my efforts than fretting about the use of a double negative, for example.  After all, how would the Rolling Stones sound if they belted out, "I can't get any satisfaction"?  A bit wimpy, I think

So even though I occasionally get a strong desire to dig down in my purse for a red pen and circle an "it's" used as a possessive (as in the incorrect *"The city had it's problems." Shocking, don't you think?), I will take a linguist's view and consider the usage interesting.  Let's investigate.  

In English, we use an apostrophe s to make a singular noun possessive.  We say "Mary's trombone, John's saxophone, and the child's trumpet."   Because our brains are constantly creating grammar from the language we use, a logical generalization of the possessive rule would be to put an apostrophe s on "it" to show that "it" owns something. The problem arises because "it" is a pronoun, not a noun, and belongs to the category of words like "his," "hers," and "theirs," which all indicate possession without the apostrophe. An added difficulty is that "it's" is already something else in the language - a contraction for "it is."  

The English language is constantly changing.  It is like shifting sand beneath our feet.  Who knows if in the future so many English speakers will decide that they want to use *"it's" to show possession that it will become the standard form.  It may make some of us nervous, but it could happen, you know!    

"Random" Language Thoughts from the Winter Olympics

I can't help it.  I really love everything about the Olympic Games.  My husband Wayne and I attended the 2012 Summer Games in London several summers ago, an unforgettable experience. We are watching this year's 2014 Winter Olympics from the comfort of our TV room, complete with a large tin of popcorn and our cat Bitsy purring in my lap.

The Games bring together many of the things in life I enjoy - an international perspective, enthusiastic young people, lots of drama, and a chance to observe language used in many different forms.  Yes, language, believe it or not.

Sage Kotsenburg in center

The first bit of language that brought a smile to my face was the news that Sage Kotsenburg (the snowboarder who later was awarded the first US gold medal in the games), tweeted the news that he had made it to the semi-finals and added, "How random is that?" That phrase expressed so well Sage's surprise and honesty regarding his own abilities.  It was a refreshing change from other athletes who appear to be much more driven and self-absorbed.

Ever since I heard my 20-something son use the word "random" in a new context, I have been noticing its more frequent use by young people recently.   "Random" still means "occurring by chance," but it seems that the word has expanded in meaning and has now entered the domain of slang.

In case you aren't a member of the hip generation, have a look at this web site for some great examples of the expanded uses of "random".

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/random 

You may even want to start using some slang yourself!

Now let's have a serious discussion about slang. In the world of Linguistics, prescriptivists are those who gleefully take out their real or virtual red pens for correction and declare that a word like "random" used with an additional meaning is wrong, disgraceful, not to be allowed, and will cause the world to take a long plunge into the Nether Regions in a hand basket.  On the other hand, most linguists pride themselves on being descriptivists.  They are interested in studying language as it is currently used, not in making judgments about its correctness. Most linguists think slang is innovative, clever, entertaining, and worthy of attention. 

All languages change over time.  Words will take on new meanings and lose others.  Linguists call this phenomenon "semantic change"  (a nice neutral term) or "semantic shift" or "semantic drift."  I prefer the last term.  I like the idea of language not having to stay in prescribed areas but having the ability to conform to new situations.

Maybe "random" as a slang term has been overused.  Many slang terms are, and then they tend to disappear. I for one am enjoying "random" right now.  Somehow it just wouldn't have been the same for Sage Kotsenburg to have tweeted, "How capricious is that?" 

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!