English usage controversies: Difference between revisions
Reverted good faith edits by 2A00:23C4:1E9D:D501:FE59:9CE9:1528:3FFA (talk): Revert self-referential joke |
|||
(759 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Disputes over "correct" grammar and style}} |
|||
Cases of '''disputed English grammar''' arise when individuals disagree about what should be considered correct English in particular grammatical constructions. |
|||
{{Grammar series}}{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2023}} |
|||
In the English language, there are [[grammatical construction]]s that many native speakers use unquestioningly yet certain writers call incorrect. Differences of usage or opinion may stem from differences between formal and informal speech and other matters of [[Register (sociolinguistics)|register]], differences among [[dialect]]s (whether regional, class-based, or other), and so forth. Disputes may arise when [[style guide]]s disagree with each other, or when a guideline or judgement is confronted by large amounts of conflicting evidence or has its rationale challenged. |
|||
==Examples== |
|||
Such disagreements often are surprisingly impassioned. Sometimes, one side attempts to argue on the basis of logic or functionality that a particular usage is better. At other times, people appeal to precedent: a particular usage should be used because the best writers have used it in the past. In some cases, people will even appeal to writers who wrote several centuries ago, such as [[William Shakespeare]]. Such appeals to old usage are dubious, since many grammatical constructions used by Shakespeare could not possibly be used in educated writing today, as in the use of "his" for "its", or "an" for "if". We do not hold such usages against Shakespeare, since they were normal in his day and the language has changed since then. |
|||
Some of the sources that consider some of the following examples incorrect consider the same examples to be acceptable in dialects other than [[Standard English]] or in an informal register; others consider certain constructions to be incorrect in any variety of English. On the other hand, many or all of the following examples are considered correct by some sources. |
|||
* [[Generic you|Generic ''you'']] – e.g., "Brushing '''your''' teeth is a good habit" as opposed to "Brushing '''one's''' teeth is a good habit"<ref name="7hj6S" /><ref name="HU7zz" /> |
|||
* [[Singular they|Singular ''they'']] – e.g., "'''Somebody''' left '''their''' sweater"<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bodine |first1=Ann |year=1975 |title=Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar |journal=Language in Society |volume=4 |issue=2 |doi=10.1017/S0047404500004607|s2cid=146362006 }}</ref> or "'''My friend''' left '''their''' sweater here"<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Bjorkman |first1= Bronwyn |year=2017 |title= Singular they and the syntactic representation of gender in English |journal=Glossa |volume=2|doi=10.5334/gjgl.374|doi-access=free }}</ref> |
|||
<!--this has never been just for gender-neutral language--> |
|||
* [[Flat adverb]]s – e.g., "Drive '''safe'''" as opposed to "Drive '''safely'''"<ref name="oos">{{Cite book |last1=O'Conner |first1=P.T. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2Ju-Vu0v6GQC&pg=PA30 |title=Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language |last2=Kellerman |first2=S. |date=2009 |publisher=Random House Publishing Group |isbn=9781588368560 |page=30}}</ref> |
|||
* [[Split infinitive]]s – e.g., "[[Where no man has gone before|'''To''' boldly '''go''' where no man has gone before]]" as opposed to "'''To go boldly''' where no man has gone before"<ref name="Fowler547" /> |
|||
* Beginning a sentence with a [[Conjunction (grammar)|conjunction]] – e.g., "'''But''' Dad said not to jump on the bed!"<ref name="H3vSG" /><ref name="OjJSl" /> |
|||
* [[English possessive#Double genitive|Double genitive]] – e.g. "a friend of theirs" as opposed to "a friend of them" or "their friend"<ref name="K7EwH" /> |
|||
* Using "me" vs. "I" in the [[subject complement]] ("It's '''me'''" as opposed to "It's '''I'''" or "It is '''I'''") or [[I (pronoun)#Me as a subject pronoun|other cases]] – e.g., "Me and Bob" vs. "Bob and I"<ref name="hqbQm" /> |
|||
* Using "I" vs. "me" in the [[oblique case]], e.g., "He gave the ball to Bob and I" instead of "He gave the ball to Bob and me". This is often called a [[hypercorrection]], since it is perceived as related to avoidance of the stigmatized incorrect use of the oblique form.<ref name="qUhIZ" /> {{xref|(See also: [[Between you and I]].)}} |
|||
* The validity of ''aren't'' as a negative first-person singular contraction for ''to be'' in interrogative uses – e.g., "'''Aren't''' I the one you were talking about?"<ref name="gTPiu" /> {{xref|(See also: [[Ain't]].)}} |
|||
* The grammatical means for marking [[Counterfactual conditional#The grammar of counterfactuality|counterfactuality]] – e.g., "[[If I Were a Rich Man (song)|If I '''were/was''' a rich man]]" and "If the pandemic '''didn't happen'''/'''hadn't happened'''". |
|||
* Whether to use [[Who (pronoun)#Usage of "whom"|''who'' or ''whom'']] in various contexts<ref>{{cite web |url = https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/who-vs-whom-grammar-usage |title = How to Use 'Who' vs. 'Whom' |website = Merriam Webster |access-date = 7 Dec 2024}}</ref> |
|||
* The use of [[Fewer vs. less|''less'' or ''fewer'']] with [[count noun]]s<ref name="mwdeu-less-fewer" /> |
|||
* [[Double negative]]s – e.g., "[[Another Brick in the Wall|We '''don't''' need '''no''' education]]"<ref name="cp4ge" /> |
|||
* Certain [[double modal]]s – e.g., "You '''might could''' do it" – not considered standard, but used for example in [[Southern American English]]<ref name="Wilson" /> |
|||
* [[Double copula]]<ref name="nZABI" /> – e.g., "What has to happen '''is, is''' that the money has to come from somewhere"<ref name="lJiGc" /> |
|||
* [[Preposition stranding]] – e.g., "You have nothing to be afraid of" (vs. "You have nothing of which to be afraid") – criticized by grammarians in the 1600s by analogy with Latin grammar and by some teachers since, though many have always accepted it as part of standard English<ref name="AyYVt" /> |
|||
* Distinction or lack of it between the past and past participle forms of the verb – e.g. "I should have ''went''" and "I ''done'' that yesterday". |
|||
* [[Quotation marks in English#Primary quotations versus secondary quotations|Order of quoted punctuation marks]], i.e., American style ("Many dreams were characterized as 'raw,' 'powerful,' and 'evocative{{'"}}) vs. British style ('Many dreams were characterized as "raw", "powerful" and "evocative{{"'}}). Some American authorities (such as the [[American Psychological Association|APA]] and [[The Chicago Manual of Style|CMS]]) require the former, while others (such as the [[Linguistic Society of America|LSA]]) allow, prefer, or require the latter. |
|||
* Whether the verbs ''open/close'' to denote ''[[switch|turn on/turn off]]'' can be used as [[English collocations]] (i.e. "Open the lights, please" for "Turn on the lights, please"). The expression is a [[metaphrase]] and is common among [[English as a second or foreign language|nonnative English speakers]] of Hebrew, Croatian, Filipino, French, Thai, Chinese, Greek, Italian descent, and also among [[French Canadians]] (or speakers of [[Quebec English]]), where "open" and "close" for "on" and "off" are used instead. This construction is grammatically correct but only out of context. The [[calquing]] and [[Language transfer|linguistic transfer]] make this construction foreign to other English speakers.<ref name="r1" /> |
|||
Several proscriptions concern matters of writing style and clarity but not grammatical correctness: |
|||
Writing about usage tends to be most useful to other people if it makes clear ''what kind of impression'' a particular usage will make on particular kinds of readers. Some usages will strike some readers as "barbarous" and uneducated. Other usages pose the opposite risk, that they will strike some readers as pretentious. Ideally, good advice will help a writer to best adapt his or her writing to the intended audience. Unfortunately, there are also cases where no single usage will please all readers: one choice will sound vulgar to some readers and another pretentious to different readers. For an example, see the discussion of usage in the Wikipedia article [[tempo]]. |
|||
* [[Dangling modifier]]s (including dangling participles) are often cited as potentially causing confusion.<ref name="GWP7S" /> |
|||
* Various style guides warn writers to avoid<ref name="mLg12" /> the [[passive voice]]. |
|||
* [[Gender neutrality in English]]: |
|||
** [[Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns]] – Replacing masculine pronouns where they are meant to refer to a person of either gender with both masculine and feminine pronouns, alternative phrasing, the [[singular they]]<ref name="GJHOC" /> or [[Neopronoun|newly invented words]] like "hir" and "ze"{{citation needed|date=June 2022}} |
|||
** Terms for humans in general – Replacing nouns like "mankind" with "humankind" |
|||
** [[Gender marking in job titles]] – Replacing nouns like "chairman" and "manpower" with alternatives like "chairperson" and "staffing levels" |
|||
** Use of [[Ms.]] for equality with [[Mr.]], as opposed to [[Miss]] and [[Mrs.]], which specify whether the woman is married; there are no similar titles for men that specify whether the man is married. |
|||
For an alphabetical list of disputes concerning a single word or phrase, see [[List of English words with disputed usage]]. |
|||
==Split infinitives== |
|||
==Factors in disputes== |
|||
See [[split infinitive]]. |
|||
The following circumstances may feature in disputes: |
|||
===Myths and superstitions=== |
|||
==Object and Subject in Prepositional Phrases== |
|||
There are a number of alleged rules of unclear origin that have no rational basis or are based on things such as misremembered rules taught in school. They are sometimes described by authorities as superstitions or myths. These include rules such as not beginning sentences with "and"<ref name="MWDEU" /> or "because"<ref name="MWDEU" /> or not ending them with prepositions.<ref name="Fowler 1996" /> See [[common English usage misconceptions]]. |
|||
===No central authority=== |
|||
Sentences containing a prepositional phrase like ''to Joe and me'' are often changed to ''to Joe and I'' in the belief that "...and I" is always correct. The use of subject pronouns (e.g. ''I'', ''he'') in prepositional goes back several centuries but is considered incorrect by [[Prescription and description|prescriptivists]]. Another example of such usage is described in the section ''Between you and I'' below. |
|||
Unlike some languages, such as [[French language|French]] (which has the [[Académie Française]]), English has no single authoritative governing academy, so assessments of correctness are made by "self-appointed authorities who, reflecting varying judgments of acceptability and appropriateness, often disagree."<ref name="Quirk 1985" /> |
|||
===Education=== |
|||
Prescriptivists would mandate the same form of the first person singular [[pronoun]] as would be used without the other noun. For example, ''Lucy gave a dollar to Joe and me'' would be mandated because ''Lucy gave a dollar to me'' is almost universally considered correct, as opposed to ''Lucy gave a dollar to I''. |
|||
While some variations in the use of language correlate with age, sex,{{example needed|date=November 2022}} ethnic group, or region, others may be taught in schools and be preferred in the context of interaction with strangers. These forms may also gain prestige as the standard language of professionals, politicians, etc., and be called [[Standard English]] (SE), whereas forms associated with less educated speakers may be called nonstandard (or less commonly substandard) English.<ref name="Quirk 1985" /> |
|||
== |
===Stigma=== |
||
The [[Linguistic prescription|prescriptivist tradition]] may affect attitudes toward certain usages and thus the preferences of some speakers.<ref name="Quirk 1985" /> |
|||
===Hypercorrection=== |
|||
Prescriptivists consider both of these forms correct. English is |
|||
{{Main|Hypercorrection}} |
|||
approaching the end of a period of transition from one usage to the other. The second is more common, but the first is also considered correct. |
|||
Because of the [[Stigma (sociological theory)|stigma]] attached to violating prescriptivist norms, speakers and writers sometimes incorrectly extend usage rules beyond their scope in attempting to avoid mistakes.<ref name="Quirk 1985" /> |
|||
===Classical languages=== |
|||
The ''I'' in "It's I" is a subject complement. Subject complements are used only with a class of verbs called linking verbs, of which ''to be'' is the most common. Unlike object complements, subject complements are not affected by the action of the verb, and they describe or explain the subject. In this case, ''I'' is not affected by the action of the verb ''is'', and it specifies exactly who the subject ''It'' is. The subject complement therefore takes the subjective case. Usually, this makes no difference in the sentence because English nouns no longer distinguish between subjective and objective case. But English pronouns make the distinction, and the subject complement takes ''I'' instead of ''me''. ''It's I'' is sounds strange to many English speakers, but is considered correct by prescriptivists. |
|||
Prescriptivist arguments about various English constructions' correctness have sometimes been based on Latin grammar.<ref name="Huddleston 2002" /> |
|||
===Analogy with other constructions=== |
|||
However, the subject complement usage has been fading out due to the "simplifying" that English has been undergoing for centuries. The usage makes English more complicated by requiring a speaker to distinguish between two types of complements and using different forms of the pronoun. But this complication adds nothing to communication, as shown by the fact that the same form of the noun is used in both types of complement, without harm to understanding. English speakers have discovered that they can dispense with the subject complement usage, and they are gradually doing so. |
|||
It is sometimes argued that a certain usage is more logical than another, or that it is more consistent with other usages, by analogy with different grammatical constructions. For instance, it may be argued that the accusative form must be used for the components of a [[Coordination (linguistics)|coordinate construction]] where it would be used for a single pronoun.<ref name="Huddleston 2002" /> |
|||
At this point, the use of the subjective in the subject complement has almost entirely disappeared. Both usages are still current, but the use of subjective in the subject complement is much less common. |
|||
Speakers and writers frequently do not consider it necessary to justify their positions on a particular usage, taking its correctness or incorrectness for granted. In some cases, people believe an expression to be incorrect partly because they also falsely believe it to be newer than it really is.<ref name="U97Uh" /> |
|||
== Between you and I == |
|||
==Prescription and description== |
|||
An example of this phrase occurs in [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]]; |
|||
{{Further|Linguistic prescription|Linguistic description}} |
|||
It is often said that the difference between ''prescriptivist'' and ''descriptivist'' approaches is that the former prescribes how English ''should'' be spoken and written and the latter describes how English ''is'' spoken and written, but this is an oversimplification.<ref name="Huddleston 2002" /> Prescriptivist works may contain claims about the incorrectness of various common English constructions, but they also deal with topics other than grammar, such as style.<ref name="Huddleston 2002" /> Prescriptivists and descriptivists differ in that, when presented with evidence that purported rules disagree with most native speakers' actual usage, the prescriptivist may declare that those speakers are wrong, whereas the descriptivist will assume that the usage of the overwhelming majority of native speakers defines the language, and that the prescriptivist has an idiosyncratic view of correct usage.<ref name="Huddleston 2002" /> Particularly in older prescriptivist works, recommendations may be based on personal taste, confusion between informality and ungrammaticality,<ref name="Huddleston 2002" /> or arguments related to other languages, such as Latin.<ref name="Huddleston 2002" /> |
|||
==Different forms of English== |
|||
:All debts are cleered betweene you and I... |
|||
===English internationally=== |
|||
It was also used by the Restoration playwrights. This phrase was acceptable in Tudor and Restoration England, but today, most educated people, including the authors of style manuals, would consider it ungrammatical. The principle that is cited is that prepositions always take object pronouns, and it does not matter whether the pronouns occur singly or are joined with a conjunction. |
|||
English is spoken worldwide, and the [[Standard Written English]] grammar generally taught in schools around the world will vary only slightly. Nonetheless, disputes can sometimes arise: for example, it is a matter of some debate in [[India]] whether [[British English|British]], [[American English|American]], or [[Indian English]] is the best form to use.<ref name="jrvNX" /><ref name="VIepo" />{{Failed verification|date=January 2015}} |
|||
===Regional dialects and ethnolects=== |
|||
A comparison that sheds further light on the phenomenon is the following: |
|||
{{Unreferenced section|date=May 2016}} |
|||
In contrast to their generally high level of tolerance for the dialects of other English-speaking countries, speakers often express disdain for features of certain regional or ethnic dialects, such as [[Southern American English]]'s use of ''[[y'all]]'', [[Geordie]]s' use of "yous" as the second person plural personal pronoun, and nonstandard forms of "to be" such as "The old dock bes under water most of the year" ([[Newfoundland English]]) or "That dock be under water every other week" ([[African-American Vernacular English]]). |
|||
Such disdain may not be restricted to points of grammar; speakers often criticize regional accents and vocabulary as well. Arguments related to regional dialects must center on questions of what constitutes [[Standard English]]. For example, since fairly divergent dialects from many countries are widely accepted as Standard English, it is not always clear why certain regional dialects, which may be very similar to their standard counterparts, are not. |
|||
:All debts are cleared between you and us. |
|||
:All debts are cleared between you and we. |
|||
===Register=== |
|||
Here, the subjective case sounds clearly wrong to most writers, and is almost never used in current written English. The example suggests that "between you and I" is in fact an [[idiom]]; it has been used so frequently for so many centuries that it tends to sound fairly acceptable in comparison to "between you and we". Indeed, "between you and I", though avoided in writing, would be considered acceptable in ''oral'' use by many educated speakers. |
|||
Different constructions are acceptable in different [[Register (sociolinguistics)|registers]] of English. For example, a given construction will often be seen as too formal or too informal for a situation. |
|||
== |
==See also== |
||
{{Portal|Language}} |
|||
* [[Barbarism (linguistics)]] |
|||
* [[Common English usage misconceptions]] |
|||
* [[List of dialects of English]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
See [[Singular they]]. |
|||
{{reflist|1=2|refs= |
|||
This is another controversial topic in grammar. According to many grammarians, ''they'', ''them'', and ''their'' are always plural. This rule is often contradicted in everyday speech where ''they'' is used with a plural antecedent; for instance, sentences like this explify this use of they: |
|||
<ref name="Huddleston 2002">{{Cite book|last1=Huddleston |first1=Rodney |author-link1=Rodney Huddleston |last2= Pullum |first2= Geoffrey |author-link2=Geoffrey Pullum |title=The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language |year=2002 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge; New York |pages=5–9 |isbn=978-0-521-43146-0}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Quirk 1985">{{Cite book|last1=Quirk|first1=Randolph|author-link1=Randolph Quirk|last2=Greenbaum|first2=Sidney|author-link2=Sidney Greenbaum|last3=Leech|first3=Geoffrey|author-link3=Geoffrey Leech|last4=Svartvik|first4=Jan|year=1985|title=A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language|location=Harlow|publisher=Longman |pages=14, 18 |isbn=978-0582517349|url=https://archive.org/details/comprehensivegra00quir}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="MWDEU">{{Cite book| title = Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage| year = 2002| publisher = Penguin |pages=69; 125–126 | isbn = 978-0877796336| url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780877796336}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Fowler 1996">{{Cite book|last1=Fowler |first1=H.W.|last2=Burchfield |first2=R.W.|title= The New Fowler's Modern English Usage |year=1996 |page=617 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0198610212}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Fowler547">{{cite encyclopedia | editor = Robert Allen | encyclopedia = [[Fowler's Modern English Usage|Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage]] (1926) | title = Split infinitive | year = 2002 | publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 978-0-19-860947-6 | pages = [https://archive.org/details/pocketfowlersmod00alle/page/547 547]}} "No other grammatical issue has so divided English speakers since the split infinitive was declared to be a [[solecism]] in the 19c [19th century]: raise the subject of English usage in any conversation today and it is sure to be mentioned."</ref> |
|||
<ref name="mwdeu-less-fewer">{{cite book|title=Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage |publisher=Merriam-Webster |year=1995 |edition=2nd |page=592 |chapter=less, fewer|isbn=978-0-87779-132-4 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA592}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Wilson">Kenneth G. Wilson, "Double Modal Auxiliaries", ''[http://www.bartleby.com/68/3/2003.html The Columbia Guide to Standard American English] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090307044137/http://www.bartleby.com/68/3/2003.html |date=7 March 2009}}'', 1993.</ref> |
|||
<ref name="r1">{{cite news|last=Scott|first=Marian|title=Our way with words|url=https://montrealgazette.com/news/our-way-with-words|access-date=15 March 2011|newspaper=The Gazette|date=12 February 2010}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="7hj6S">[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/you?s=t] lists "one; anyone; people in general" as a definition without qualification that it is non-standard</ref> |
|||
<ref name="HU7zz">[http://www.cchs165.jacksn.k12.il.us/English/Guide/cchs%20usage%20handbook.htm#You%20in%20Formal%20Writing] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150530064405/http://www.cchs165.jacksn.k12.il.us/English/Guide/CCHS%20Usage%20Handbook.htm#You%20in%20Formal%20Writing |date=30 May 2015 }} requires replacing "you" with another word unless it means "you the reader".</ref> |
|||
<ref name="H3vSG">{{cite web|url=http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111090604/http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/|url-status=dead|archive-date=11 January 2012|title=Can you start a sentence with a conjunction? – OxfordWords blog|date=5 January 2012|website=oxforddictionaries.com}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="OjJSl">{{cite book |author=University of Chicago |title=The Chicago Manual of Style |edition=16th |year= 2010 |publisher=Univ. of Chicago Press |location= Chicago |isbn=978-0-226-10420-1|page=257}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="K7EwH">{{cite web |last=Quinion |first=Michael |title=Double Possessive |work=World Wide Words |url=http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dou3.htm |access-date=2009-05-19}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="hqbQm">{{cite book |last1=Huddleston |first1=Rodney |author-link1=Rodney Huddleston |last2= Pullum |first2= Geoffrey K.|author-link2= Geoffrey Pullum | title=The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language |year=2002 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge; New York |isbn=978-0-521-43146-0 |page=459}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="qUhIZ">{{cite book |last1=Huddleston |first1=Rodney |author-link1=Rodney Huddleston |last2= Pullum |first2= Geoffrey K.|author-link2= Geoffrey Pullum | title=The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language |year=2002 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge; New York |isbn=978-0-521-43146-0 |page=463}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="gTPiu">{{cite web|url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aren't?s=t|title="''Aren't I?''" vs. "''Ain't I''" Usage Note|publisher=[[dictionary.com]]|access-date=9 June 2015}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="cp4ge">{{cite book |last1=Fowler |first1=H.W. |last2=Gowers |first2=Ernest |author-link1=Henry Watson Fowler |author-link2=Ernest Gowers |title=Fowler's Modern English Usage |date=1965 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=019281389-7|pages=384–386 |edition=2nd |quote=Negative mishandling.|title-link=Fowler's Modern English Usage}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="nZABI">{{cite web|url=http://currentnoblesville.com/the-double-is|title=Main Home|website=Current Publishing|date=24 September 2013}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="lJiGc">{{cite journal|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/09/17/double_is_why_linguists_think_we_sometimes_double_up_on_is_in_a_setup_payoff.html|title=Are You a Double-Is-er?|first=Alyssa|last=Pelish|date=17 September 2013|journal=Slate}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="AyYVt">{{cite web|url=http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111130230324/http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/|url-status=dead|archive-date=30 November 2011|title=Can you end a sentence with a preposition? – OxfordWords blog|date=28 November 2011|website=oxforddictionaries.com}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="GWP7S">McArthur, Tom, ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language, pp. 752–753. Oxford University Press, 1992, {{ISBN|0-19-214183-X}} The dangling modifier or participle</ref> |
|||
<ref name="mLg12">[[The Elements of Style]], 1918</ref> |
|||
<ref name="GJHOC">Chicago Manual of Style, 13th edition, (1983): p. 233.</ref> |
|||
<ref name="U97Uh">{{cite news |url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/10/09/losing_our_illusions/ |title=Losing our illusions |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |date=9 October 2005 |first=Jan |last=Freeman}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="jrvNX">{{cite web|url=http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/post/india/hohenthal/9.2.html |title=The Model for English in India – the Informants' Views |first=Annika |last=Hohenthal |date=5 June 2001 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060707151608/http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/post/india/hohenthal/9.2.html |archive-date=7 July 2006}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="VIepo">{{cite web |url=http://library.vu.edu.au/search?/Xenglish&r=m&b=int&m=-&m=Z&SORT=A/Xenglish&r=m&b=int&m=-&m=Z&SORT=A&SUBKEY=english/1%2C25%2C2425%2C/frameset&FF=Xenglish&r=m&b=int&m=-&m=Z&SORT=A&9%29%2C |title=English in a global context |publisher=Victoria University |first=James |last=Limerick |year=2002}}</ref> |
|||
}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
|||
Someone who smokes damages their health. |
|||
* {{cite book|author=Robert Lane Greene|year=2011|isbn=978-0553807875|title=You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity|publisher=Delacorte Press }} |
|||
* {{cite book|title=Horrible Words: A Guide to the Misuse of English |author=Rebecca Gowers |publisher=Penguin UK |year=2018 |isbn=978-0141978970}} |
|||
[[Category:English usage controversies| ]] |
|||
Since the use of they as a singular pronoun has become ubiquitous in everyday speech, many linguists have advocated the adoption of this word as a third person singular as well as plural. This change would mirror the adoption of you as a singular (it was traditionally plural). Opponents, on the other hand, argue that using ''they'' as a singular is sloppy. |
|||
== See also == |
|||
* [[English language]] |
|||
* [[grammar]] |
|||
* [[hanging participle]] |
|||
[[Category:English grammar]] |
Latest revision as of 17:48, 29 December 2024
Part of a series on |
English grammar |
---|
In the English language, there are grammatical constructions that many native speakers use unquestioningly yet certain writers call incorrect. Differences of usage or opinion may stem from differences between formal and informal speech and other matters of register, differences among dialects (whether regional, class-based, or other), and so forth. Disputes may arise when style guides disagree with each other, or when a guideline or judgement is confronted by large amounts of conflicting evidence or has its rationale challenged.
Examples
[edit]Some of the sources that consider some of the following examples incorrect consider the same examples to be acceptable in dialects other than Standard English or in an informal register; others consider certain constructions to be incorrect in any variety of English. On the other hand, many or all of the following examples are considered correct by some sources.
- Generic you – e.g., "Brushing your teeth is a good habit" as opposed to "Brushing one's teeth is a good habit"[1][2]
- Singular they – e.g., "Somebody left their sweater"[3] or "My friend left their sweater here"[4]
- Flat adverbs – e.g., "Drive safe" as opposed to "Drive safely"[5]
- Split infinitives – e.g., "To boldly go where no man has gone before" as opposed to "To go boldly where no man has gone before"[6]
- Beginning a sentence with a conjunction – e.g., "But Dad said not to jump on the bed!"[7][8]
- Double genitive – e.g. "a friend of theirs" as opposed to "a friend of them" or "their friend"[9]
- Using "me" vs. "I" in the subject complement ("It's me" as opposed to "It's I" or "It is I") or other cases – e.g., "Me and Bob" vs. "Bob and I"[10]
- Using "I" vs. "me" in the oblique case, e.g., "He gave the ball to Bob and I" instead of "He gave the ball to Bob and me". This is often called a hypercorrection, since it is perceived as related to avoidance of the stigmatized incorrect use of the oblique form.[11]
- The validity of aren't as a negative first-person singular contraction for to be in interrogative uses – e.g., "Aren't I the one you were talking about?"[12]
- The grammatical means for marking counterfactuality – e.g., "If I were/was a rich man" and "If the pandemic didn't happen/hadn't happened".
- Whether to use who or whom in various contexts[13]
- The use of less or fewer with count nouns[14]
- Double negatives – e.g., "We don't need no education"[15]
- Certain double modals – e.g., "You might could do it" – not considered standard, but used for example in Southern American English[16]
- Double copula[17] – e.g., "What has to happen is, is that the money has to come from somewhere"[18]
- Preposition stranding – e.g., "You have nothing to be afraid of" (vs. "You have nothing of which to be afraid") – criticized by grammarians in the 1600s by analogy with Latin grammar and by some teachers since, though many have always accepted it as part of standard English[19]
- Distinction or lack of it between the past and past participle forms of the verb – e.g. "I should have went" and "I done that yesterday".
- Order of quoted punctuation marks, i.e., American style ("Many dreams were characterized as 'raw,' 'powerful,' and 'evocative'") vs. British style ('Many dreams were characterized as "raw", "powerful" and "evocative"'). Some American authorities (such as the APA and CMS) require the former, while others (such as the LSA) allow, prefer, or require the latter.
- Whether the verbs open/close to denote turn on/turn off can be used as English collocations (i.e. "Open the lights, please" for "Turn on the lights, please"). The expression is a metaphrase and is common among nonnative English speakers of Hebrew, Croatian, Filipino, French, Thai, Chinese, Greek, Italian descent, and also among French Canadians (or speakers of Quebec English), where "open" and "close" for "on" and "off" are used instead. This construction is grammatically correct but only out of context. The calquing and linguistic transfer make this construction foreign to other English speakers.[20]
Several proscriptions concern matters of writing style and clarity but not grammatical correctness:
- Dangling modifiers (including dangling participles) are often cited as potentially causing confusion.[21]
- Various style guides warn writers to avoid[22] the passive voice.
- Gender neutrality in English:
- Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns – Replacing masculine pronouns where they are meant to refer to a person of either gender with both masculine and feminine pronouns, alternative phrasing, the singular they[23] or newly invented words like "hir" and "ze"[citation needed]
- Terms for humans in general – Replacing nouns like "mankind" with "humankind"
- Gender marking in job titles – Replacing nouns like "chairman" and "manpower" with alternatives like "chairperson" and "staffing levels"
- Use of Ms. for equality with Mr., as opposed to Miss and Mrs., which specify whether the woman is married; there are no similar titles for men that specify whether the man is married.
For an alphabetical list of disputes concerning a single word or phrase, see List of English words with disputed usage.
Factors in disputes
[edit]The following circumstances may feature in disputes:
Myths and superstitions
[edit]There are a number of alleged rules of unclear origin that have no rational basis or are based on things such as misremembered rules taught in school. They are sometimes described by authorities as superstitions or myths. These include rules such as not beginning sentences with "and"[24] or "because"[24] or not ending them with prepositions.[25] See common English usage misconceptions.
No central authority
[edit]Unlike some languages, such as French (which has the Académie Française), English has no single authoritative governing academy, so assessments of correctness are made by "self-appointed authorities who, reflecting varying judgments of acceptability and appropriateness, often disagree."[26]
Education
[edit]While some variations in the use of language correlate with age, sex,[example needed] ethnic group, or region, others may be taught in schools and be preferred in the context of interaction with strangers. These forms may also gain prestige as the standard language of professionals, politicians, etc., and be called Standard English (SE), whereas forms associated with less educated speakers may be called nonstandard (or less commonly substandard) English.[26]
Stigma
[edit]The prescriptivist tradition may affect attitudes toward certain usages and thus the preferences of some speakers.[26]
Hypercorrection
[edit]Because of the stigma attached to violating prescriptivist norms, speakers and writers sometimes incorrectly extend usage rules beyond their scope in attempting to avoid mistakes.[26]
Classical languages
[edit]Prescriptivist arguments about various English constructions' correctness have sometimes been based on Latin grammar.[27]
Analogy with other constructions
[edit]It is sometimes argued that a certain usage is more logical than another, or that it is more consistent with other usages, by analogy with different grammatical constructions. For instance, it may be argued that the accusative form must be used for the components of a coordinate construction where it would be used for a single pronoun.[27]
Speakers and writers frequently do not consider it necessary to justify their positions on a particular usage, taking its correctness or incorrectness for granted. In some cases, people believe an expression to be incorrect partly because they also falsely believe it to be newer than it really is.[28]
Prescription and description
[edit]It is often said that the difference between prescriptivist and descriptivist approaches is that the former prescribes how English should be spoken and written and the latter describes how English is spoken and written, but this is an oversimplification.[27] Prescriptivist works may contain claims about the incorrectness of various common English constructions, but they also deal with topics other than grammar, such as style.[27] Prescriptivists and descriptivists differ in that, when presented with evidence that purported rules disagree with most native speakers' actual usage, the prescriptivist may declare that those speakers are wrong, whereas the descriptivist will assume that the usage of the overwhelming majority of native speakers defines the language, and that the prescriptivist has an idiosyncratic view of correct usage.[27] Particularly in older prescriptivist works, recommendations may be based on personal taste, confusion between informality and ungrammaticality,[27] or arguments related to other languages, such as Latin.[27]
Different forms of English
[edit]English internationally
[edit]English is spoken worldwide, and the Standard Written English grammar generally taught in schools around the world will vary only slightly. Nonetheless, disputes can sometimes arise: for example, it is a matter of some debate in India whether British, American, or Indian English is the best form to use.[29][30][failed verification]
Regional dialects and ethnolects
[edit]In contrast to their generally high level of tolerance for the dialects of other English-speaking countries, speakers often express disdain for features of certain regional or ethnic dialects, such as Southern American English's use of y'all, Geordies' use of "yous" as the second person plural personal pronoun, and nonstandard forms of "to be" such as "The old dock bes under water most of the year" (Newfoundland English) or "That dock be under water every other week" (African-American Vernacular English).
Such disdain may not be restricted to points of grammar; speakers often criticize regional accents and vocabulary as well. Arguments related to regional dialects must center on questions of what constitutes Standard English. For example, since fairly divergent dialects from many countries are widely accepted as Standard English, it is not always clear why certain regional dialects, which may be very similar to their standard counterparts, are not.
Register
[edit]Different constructions are acceptable in different registers of English. For example, a given construction will often be seen as too formal or too informal for a situation.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ [1] lists "one; anyone; people in general" as a definition without qualification that it is non-standard
- ^ [2] Archived 30 May 2015 at the Wayback Machine requires replacing "you" with another word unless it means "you the reader".
- ^ Bodine, Ann (1975). "Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar". Language in Society. 4 (2). doi:10.1017/S0047404500004607. S2CID 146362006.
- ^ Bjorkman, Bronwyn (2017). "Singular they and the syntactic representation of gender in English". Glossa. 2. doi:10.5334/gjgl.374.
- ^ O'Conner, P.T.; Kellerman, S. (2009). Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language. Random House Publishing Group. p. 30. ISBN 9781588368560.
- ^ Robert Allen, ed. (2002). "Split infinitive". Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926). Oxford University Press. pp. 547. ISBN 978-0-19-860947-6. "No other grammatical issue has so divided English speakers since the split infinitive was declared to be a solecism in the 19c [19th century]: raise the subject of English usage in any conversation today and it is sure to be mentioned."
- ^ "Can you start a sentence with a conjunction? – OxfordWords blog". oxforddictionaries.com. 5 January 2012. Archived from the original on 11 January 2012.
- ^ University of Chicago (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-226-10420-1.
- ^ Quinion, Michael. "Double Possessive". World Wide Words. Retrieved 19 May 2009.
- ^ Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 459. ISBN 978-0-521-43146-0.
- ^ Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 463. ISBN 978-0-521-43146-0.
- ^ ""Aren't I?" vs. "Ain't I" Usage Note". dictionary.com. Retrieved 9 June 2015.
- ^ "How to Use 'Who' vs. 'Whom'". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 7 December 2024.
- ^ "less, fewer". Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage (2nd ed.). Merriam-Webster. 1995. p. 592. ISBN 978-0-87779-132-4.
- ^ Fowler, H.W.; Gowers, Ernest (1965). Fowler's Modern English Usage (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 384–386. ISBN 019281389-7.
Negative mishandling.
- ^ Kenneth G. Wilson, "Double Modal Auxiliaries", The Columbia Guide to Standard American English Archived 7 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine, 1993.
- ^ "Main Home". Current Publishing. 24 September 2013.
- ^ Pelish, Alyssa (17 September 2013). "Are You a Double-Is-er?". Slate.
- ^ "Can you end a sentence with a preposition? – OxfordWords blog". oxforddictionaries.com. 28 November 2011. Archived from the original on 30 November 2011.
- ^ Scott, Marian (12 February 2010). "Our way with words". The Gazette. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
- ^ McArthur, Tom, ed. The Oxford Companion to the English Language, pp. 752–753. Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-19-214183-X The dangling modifier or participle
- ^ The Elements of Style, 1918
- ^ Chicago Manual of Style, 13th edition, (1983): p. 233.
- ^ a b Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage. Penguin. 2002. pp. 69, 125–126. ISBN 978-0877796336.
- ^ Fowler, H.W.; Burchfield, R.W. (1996). The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 617. ISBN 978-0198610212.
- ^ a b c d Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; Svartvik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman. pp. 14, 18. ISBN 978-0582517349.
- ^ a b c d e f g Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 5–9. ISBN 978-0-521-43146-0.
- ^ Freeman, Jan (9 October 2005). "Losing our illusions". The Boston Globe.
- ^ Hohenthal, Annika (5 June 2001). "The Model for English in India – the Informants' Views". Archived from the original on 7 July 2006.
- ^ Limerick, James (2002). "English in a global context". Victoria University.
Further reading
[edit]- Robert Lane Greene (2011). You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity. Delacorte Press. ISBN 978-0553807875.
- Rebecca Gowers (2018). Horrible Words: A Guide to the Misuse of English. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0141978970.