“Correct” English

Originally published here on April 1, 2008.

Since I mentioned the International Reading Association's listserv just last week, I thought I'd share a little of another recent thread from there.

Periodically someone on the listserv brings up the concept of "proper" or "correct" spoken grammar and I always respond to that thread at least once. I approach the issue from a linguistic point of view (I studied general linguistics at the Australian National University in the early 1990's) and I've always thought the prescriptive view of grammar was problematic. Here's my response to the issue (with a minor revision or two), from the IRA listserv...

As a linguist I would argue that the term "correct" references values or morals. I don't think there's anything immoral about the use of double negatives, for example. Inappropriate occasionally? Yes. But not immoral.

Using non-standard grammar often communicates meaning more naturally and clearly than the actual standard. Since I brought up double negatives, I'll use them as an example. English teachers are fond of saying that two negatives make a positive. That's true. Provided you're multiplying. (You'll notice the non-standard use of sentence structure there, purposely employed for emphasis. I'm well aware that "Provided you're multiplying." doesn't actually stand by itself as a sentence.) If you are adding, two negatives make a stronger negative (a number even futher down the negative side of the number line). If you ask me how I like a restaurant, an answer of "I don't believe I'll eat there again." doesn't carry near the power of "I ain't NEVER going back to that place..." Double negatives may be non-standard, but they serve to place emphasis on the negative statement.

Other forms of non-standard English grammatical constructions often serve the same purpose. For example, no one ever corrects the grammar of the figure of speech "That dog don't hunt." To say "That dog doesn't hunt." would make people wonder if English was your second language - not because the grammar is incorrect, but because the grammar is correct (but the idiom is mauled).

I think Standard English exists. I would probably go further and say that there is a Standard American English, a Standard British English, and maybe even a Standard Australian English. But I think those standards are abstract concepts that provide a reference, not a dialect anyone actually speaks. Everyone's English dialect varies at least a little from their standard.

Instead of the moral term "correct," I try to impart the idea to my students that there are levels of formality in our language. Linguistic fluency includes knowing what level of formality is acceptable for a variety of circumstances. The closer you are to the standard, the more formal your speech. Since speaking exactly standard English isn't natural for anyone (in my opinion), it takes effort to do so. If the mayor of our small town visits the school, I hope my children will use their most formal speech patterns in discourse with her. But I don't mind if they tell me in the lunch line that they "Ain't interested in having no spinach" on their plate today. I know exactly what they mean, and they don't get graded on lunch....