Says Who? Summary

“Who gets to say what is right or wrong in language? And what does that say about us?”

1. The Myth of Absolute Rules

Language may seem bound by rigid rules, but these rules are often historically and socially constructed. For instance, the controversial use of "impact" as a verb has actually been around longer than its noun form. By observing the history of language, we see clearly defined "rules" are not as fixed as they seem.

Traditionally, critics have opposed using "impact" as a verb in figurative contexts. For decades, professional organizations and usage panels rejected statements like "The new policy impacted the economy." However, "impact" as a verb was commonplace centuries earlier with meanings like "to press closely." This dissonance between perception and reality highlights language's inherent fluidity.

Even organized bodies like the American Heritage Dictionary's Usage Panel evolved over decades in their judgments about "impact." This shift shows grammar "rules" are often subjective and influenced by social norms. Understanding this context means we can make better choices depending on the audience and situation.

Examples

• "Impact" appeared as a verb in the 1600s before its noun form was popularized in the 1700s.
• By 2015, only 50% of grammar experts opposed its figurative verb use, down from 81% in 2001.
• The panel that once dictated such rules disbanded in 2018, leaving room for new flexibility.

2. The Debate on Political Correctness Is About Power

Language reflects power dynamics, and what some call "political correctness" is often about pushing for inclusivity in a society with unequal systems. Words like "ain't" and inclusive terms like "Latinx" demonstrate how groups reclaim language or challenge its status quo.

Take the often-stigmatized term "ain't." Its association with marginalized dialects fuels its dismissal as "improper," even as it functions logically as a contraction like other accepted forms. Similarly, introducing "Latinx" aimed to create a gender-neutral option for Latino/Latina, but surveys show mixed reception, with many preferring "Latine" instead.

The push for inclusive terms challenges exclusionary traditions, making room for less privileged voices to thrive. While some argue certain terms go too far, language change often forces reflection on representation and fairness.

Examples

• "Ain't" often faces rejection due to its association with African American and Southern dialects.
• "Latinx" gained traction in academic spaces to promote neutrality but hasn’t been universally embraced.
• Shifts in language-politics aim to disrupt outdated norms and amplify marginalized voices.

3. Let’s Talk About Fun, Funner, and Funnest

When language evolves naturally, some forms sound strange to us initially, even if they're grammatically logical. "Funner" and "funnest" are prime examples of harmless evolutions met with resistance.

Traditionally, "fun" functioned only as a noun or verb, such as "We're having fun." It wasn't until the mid-20th century that it transformed into an adjective, like "That was a fun day." Comparisons like "funner" still feel unusual because, historically, "more fun" fulfilled that role.

Similarly, "unique" now means both "one of a kind" and simply "uncommon." Over time, we adapted to its comparative uses, as in "more unique." Language continuously bends to meet our expressive needs.

Examples

• "Funner" exists but is often viewed as improper compared to "more fun."
• Early meanings of "unique" emphasized exclusivity but later stretched to general rarity.
• Even "lollygag," once meaning "kissing," changed to mean "lazing around."

4. Who Versus Whom: An Endangered Rule

The difference between "who" and "whom" perplexes many, but the distinction is becoming less relevant. Traditionally, "who" refers to the subject, and "whom" is for the object, but conversational English rarely honors this.

Language relies on cues like word order. For instance, "Who did you see?" flows naturally, even though the "correct" question is "Whom did you see?" This is because using "whom" can sound stiff or outdated, so most people abandon it unconsciously.

Language usage also reflects centuries-old shifts. Evidence suggests confusion around "who" and "whom" dates back at least to the 1400s. The trend away from “whom” signals its likely disappearance.

Examples

• “Whom did you tell?” follows rules, but most prefer “Who did you tell?”
• English’s word order already signals subject versus object roles.
• Confusion about “whom” spans hundreds of years, indicating its limited practical impact.

5. The Oxford Comma: Important or Optional?

The choice to use the Oxford comma often feels divisive among writers. While it clarifies some sentences, its necessity largely depends on context.

One classic example involves the phrase “This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.” Without the comma, it ambiguously suggests that the speaker’s parents are Ayn Rand and God — using the Oxford comma clears up confusion. Still, such instances of ambiguity are rare.

Historically, written English lacked standardized punctuation. Over centuries, editors shaped punctuation conventions, including current comma use. Ultimately, we might benefit more from employing commas where they're useful and skipping them otherwise, rather than rigid consistency.

Examples

• “My parents, Ayn Rand and God” implies unintended relationships due to missing commas.
• English’s earliest texts often omitted punctuation, leaving interpretation to readers.
• Comma rules became structured only after printers and grammarians formalized them.

6. Flow in Writing Requires Simplicity

Good writing often "flows," bridging ideas together smoothly. Achieving flow relies on principles like the known-new contract, which structures sentences to link familiar ideas (known) to new ones clearly.

Consider poor flow versus well-connected prose on handwritten versus typed notes. One version jumps between unrelated ideas, while the original article logically transitions between points about memory, note-taking habits, and outcomes. Readers follow because their expectations are aligned.

Flow isn't about complexity; it’s about clarity. By embracing understandable sentence structures, writers make even advanced topics approachable for readers.

Examples

• Choppy: “Kids today can’t focus. Bring back pencils. No tech!”
• Well-flowing: “Handwritten notes aid memory. Even warnings don’t improve typed notes.”
• Simple adherence to the known-new approach makes writing cohesive and accessible.

7. Starting Sentences with Conjunctions: Why Not?

Many of us learned never to begin sentences with "and" or "but," but this rule doesn't hold up in actual practice.

Rooted in teaching clarity to students, this "rule" dates back to educators discouraging run-ons. However, history shows less restrictive language norms, including early biblical texts and Old English writing freely using conjunctions to begin sentences.

Today, writers from academics to novelists break this rule, incorporating variety into sentence structure. Style guides like Microsoft Word flag it as incorrect, but the effect of conjunction use often enhances writing's rhythm.

Examples

• The Bible frequently begins passages with “and,” showing its long-standing acceptance.
• Old English texts aligned closely with speech, valuing communicative over rigid structures.
• Writers use rhetorical “so” starters for dramatic storytelling, as in “So, I decided…”

8. Linguistic Stigma Hinders Evolution

Reactions to evolving words or grammar stem from bias, often embedding power dynamics into language norms. Linguistic evolution highlights why clinging to hard rules limits expression.

Terms like “ain’t” remain unfairly maligned despite functioning semantically like any contraction. Similarly, political correctness debates draw attention to exclusionary practices, but detractors use outlier examples to dismiss larger progress.

Our personal biases often influence how we approach changes in language. Being aware of this can help us evolve our thinking and vocabulary with openness.

Examples

• “Ain’t” functions with grammatical fairness, yet faces stigma tied to class and race.
• Critics weaponize fringe terms like “vertically challenged” to trivialize inclusivity.
• Sensitivity around evolving terms reflects deeper cultural inequities beyond language.

9. Context Dictates Grammar’s Relevance

Specific contexts determine where rules matter most, and flexibility can enhance communication overall. Language's evolution reflects its ability to adapt when strict rules don’t fit.

Writers are tasked with knowing their audience. In casual writing like emails, grammar leniency facilitates conversational accessibility. In formal writing, adhering to conventions preserves clarity and professionalism.

Context-sensitive language use empowers users to adapt across social and professional settings. Breaking unnecessary rules means valuing connection over correctness.

Examples

• Ending a sentence with prepositions, like “Who is this for?” reads naturally, unlike rigid forms of yore.
• Simplifying formal rules like “whom” in informal chats supports mutual understanding.
• Professionalisms, such as Oxford comma use, depend on publication norms to avoid ambiguity.

Takeaways

1. Embrace language change as natural and focus on context to guide your grammar choices.
2. Prioritize clarity and flow in writing by following the known-new principle to maintain logical transitions.
3. Challenge your biases about language norms, especially when they reinforce outdated perceptions or exclude others.