(I’m just bored.)

Let’s examine a number of issues and arguments:

1. Purpose of proper grammar
2. Written vs. spoken
3. Evolving times

Purpose of proper grammar

First of all, grammar is the set of conventions that regulate the use of aspects of a language. These conventions developed with the advancement of the English language (along with spelling), propagated by the printing press, improvements in the distribution of information, and later on, modern technology. The need for proper grammar, particularly in internationally popular languages like English, Mandarin, and Arabic, or (particularly) in European languages with similar but distant origins (e.g. French, Spanish, and Russian), is simply to ensure that all of the speakers of that language are able to understand and communicate in that language. Indeed, defining grammar is like defining a language.

It is very important that we develop proper grammar so that — for instance — a native English speaker from Canada can write essays to be read by students of English in Germany, or so that the scientific discoveries of a genius can be understood in society. Without standardized grammar, there is a clear possibility of misunderstanding.

Written vs. spoken

There is a great deal of disagreement when it comes to written grammar vs. spoken grammar. This is all about the distinction between formal, written communication and everyday oral communication. Of course everyone can agree that formal written communication needs to conform to standardized grammar so that others can clearly understand one’s work; the controversy surrounds the spoken word. Some see everyday communication as a relaxed use of language, and thus argue that such use should not be governed by the same rules of grammar. Others, like myself, believe that grammar is grammar, and whether you are talking, orating, or writing a masterpiece, you should still aim for optimal clarity, and grammar provides a way to attain that clarity.

However, let us look at a few case studies (in brief). First, let’s examine what occurs in a casual discussion between teenage friends. There are certain figures of speech or commonly used phrases that have come to be accepted, despite grammatical… incompatibilities. What we see in this instance is that nobody really cares about whether or not their use of language conforms to grammar, and since nobody in the group necessarily benefits from grammatical correctness, there is no need for it.

Then let’s see what happens in a formal debate setting. In such a situation, grammar is important, because clarity is important. Messing up on grammar or syntax (which is a subset of grammar) could lead to misunderstandings, and of course misunderstandings are bad. That’s why it is necessary to conform to strict grammatical rules. Additionally, we can see that this is a formal situation, where professionalism is valued; perhaps grammar provides a distinctly professional impression, and that can be important to maintain the serious tone of a debate.

Finally, let’s see what happens a meeting between employees and their employer. Here there is not only a desire for formalities, but also we should recognize that people do judge you by the way you speak. There is a certain negative impression that is created when, in a serious business setting, a person speaks with incoherency and bad grammar. (But don’t overdo the grammatical correctness; that might just irritate some people… as I know from personal experience.)

What is evident here is that grammar is valued differently and for different reasons in different situations. There is a certain logic to those who say that they would conform to grammar only in formal occasions that demand it. There is simply no need to avoid split infinitives, for instance, in casual conversation, unless you just want to appear snobby. (Except, of course, that I do pay attention to my grammar.)

Evolving times

One of the most fundamental problems with grammar is that it evolves over time, but no one can truly decide how it evolves, and when. If modern language use is gravitating away from what used to be correct, towards more common, socially accepted language structures, should grammar adapt to that?

What I mean to say here is that, although it may have once been truly redundant to use terms such as ‘dependency’, not many people even realize the problem (do you?). (And how about using an adjective in place of an adverb?) Although this indicates a general lack of awareness of grammar, perhaps it also means that we need to loosen the grip of strict grammar. Maybe, just maybe, there is a message here: this is the direction in which the English language is moving, and grammar should just accept whatever people use, and should not hold back the development of the language.

I really do believe that grammar is important, but simply that it needs to adapt… just a little. However, instead of disposing with grammar and linguistic rules altogether, it may make much more sense to reform our rules and abide by those new rules.

(This isn’t a particularly well written article, and it was NOT composed in my physical journal book. Just remember that I am in Calgary…)

What do you think?

There are a number of quotations that may be easily applied to my life, or indeed, the lives of most humans.

… you constantly come up in life against those virtuous and sensible people, sages and lovers of mankind, who make it their very life’s purpose to conduct themselves at all times as properly and sensibly as possible; to serve, as it were, as guiding lights to their fellow men, to the end of proving to them that it is indeed possible to live in the world both decently and sensibly. And what does it all come down to? We know how many of these lovers of mankind have sooner or later ended up by betraying their own fine principles and pulling some scandalous antic–often of a most disreputable nature.

Yup, that’s me; I am a person who tries to act sensibly, logically, and decently. I can fully see the possibility, how ever much I wish to discredit it, of myself — at some point — doing something indecent and contrary to my principles.

Later on, there is another noteworthy paragraph:

In every man’s memory there are things he won’t reveal to others, except, perhaps, to friends. And there are things he won’t reveal even to friends, only, perhaps, to himself, and then, too, in secret. And finally, there are things he is afraid to reveal even to himself, and every decent man has quite an accumulation of them. In fact, the more decent the man, the more of them he has stored up.

Those of you who are pestering me about secrets may take something from this.

I am also known for criticizing bad grammar or grammar that may be improved.

Can you imagine the sort of distaste I felt when I saw this in my junk (snail) mail? (annotations added)

By the way, it was actually part of an ad for a realtor. Who knows what sorts of real estate agents are common these days?

My Question for You

EDIT: the poll isn’t working at the moment.

Civil Liberties vs. National Security in a Post-9/11 World (ISBN 1-59102-234-7):
This is an excellent book that I started reading recently. It discusses various issues surrounding the U.S. government following the events of September 11, 2001. The major sections in this book include:

1. History of civil liberty issues in wartime (inc. an excerpt from another highly-recommended book, All the Laws but One)
2. Domestic surveillance and the USA PATRIOT Act
3. Racial profiling
4. Torture
5. “Enemy combatants” and the detainment of foreigners
6. Recent developments such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal

More after the jump.

It’s not a biased book, but rather presents these contemporary issues by including arguments from both sides of each argument.

I haven’t finished it yet, but you can take a look on Amazon if you want to consider purchasing it.

By the way, I created the above picture in Photoshop by “enhancing” upon an existing cover image from Barnes & Noble. Find it on Flickr.