Thursday, November 07, 2002, 06:31 GMT
There are two extreme points of view when it comes to grammar each with their strengths and weaknesses. Those in the prescriptive camp argue that the rules of grammar are set in stone and all must follow them lest their English (or whatever particular language they are speaking or writing) be wrong. Descriptive grammarians would say that there are no rules as such, just a description of general trends in the usage of English. I can't say that I agree with either side but what is the best compromise?
The prescriptive attitude seems to ignor the fact that English has evolved over the centuries into what it is today whereas the descriptive attitude seems to be an anything-goes one. There is a value in having rules and sticking to them but where have these rules come from if not from generalisations of the way the language is spoken and written?
Should students of English be taught not to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before? Should they be taught that a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence or a question with? Should they be taught that an historic exception to the rule governing the choice between "a" and "an" is worth maintaining? Should they be taught that there aint no way that no one should use multiple negatives (unless they are meant to counter each other)? Should they be taught that if a counterfactual conditional clause in the simple present tense, like this one, was correct then the word "were" would have been used instead of "was"?
I see and hear some appalling examples of what I'd consider bad grammar on TV, on the internet, in newspapers, etc. Have I the right to insist that something is wrong if it goes against what I've been taught? Should I just sit back and say "If people are speaking and writing this way, it must be okay"?
The prescriptive attitude seems to ignor the fact that English has evolved over the centuries into what it is today whereas the descriptive attitude seems to be an anything-goes one. There is a value in having rules and sticking to them but where have these rules come from if not from generalisations of the way the language is spoken and written?
Should students of English be taught not to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before? Should they be taught that a preposition is a terrible word to end a sentence or a question with? Should they be taught that an historic exception to the rule governing the choice between "a" and "an" is worth maintaining? Should they be taught that there aint no way that no one should use multiple negatives (unless they are meant to counter each other)? Should they be taught that if a counterfactual conditional clause in the simple present tense, like this one, was correct then the word "were" would have been used instead of "was"?
I see and hear some appalling examples of what I'd consider bad grammar on TV, on the internet, in newspapers, etc. Have I the right to insist that something is wrong if it goes against what I've been taught? Should I just sit back and say "If people are speaking and writing this way, it must be okay"?