Don’t Defund the Grammar Police
By Allie Bullivant
November 2021
As a wordsmith, Instagram is not my first choice for scholastic grammarian content, but I recently came across a passionate post that gave me the shivers:
“If someone’s meaning is clear, don’t correct their spelling or grammar. If their meaning isn’t clear, ask for clarification without correcting their spelling or grammar. Start to decondition yourself from the colonial grammar rules that were forcibly engrained upon you. Those systems exist to invisibly reinforce hierarchy. Unlearn the need to police those rules, especially when the rules do nothing to enhance comprehension.” @opulentopinions
For over ten years, I taught high school English and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). My experience taught me that, far from reinforcing hierarchies, grammar is a democratizing, equalizing force, inside the American classroom, the British classroom, the ESOL classroom, and just about everywhere else. Adhering to grammar rules is a lot like following traffic laws, implementing good manners, and agreeing to other unspoken elements of the social contract that promote community flourishing. Also, it’s sort of a thing that good grammar is sexy.
So there’s that.
I wonder what is meant here by “colonial grammar rules”? Are they different from other grammar rules? How can you tell a colonial grammar rule from a plain, old grammar rule? I don’t know.
Consider English. It would take some serious linguistic gymnastics to eliminate the use of grammatical rules that originate from languages of empire and colonization, if this is indeed what our Instagram poster means. English is a language with structural and etymological roots that are heavily Germanic (Dutch colonizers and Anglo Saxon raiders, much?). It also borrows from ancient Greek (Alexander the Great) and Latin (the Roman Empire was the largest in the world for centuries). If you wish to be a purist about colonization shaping grammar and language, and you want to extract any and all “colonial influences” from English, the language would cease to exist.
A global elimination of “colonial grammar rules” would mean some of the top ten languages spoken in the world – Spanish, French, Arabic, and Portuguese among them – would disappear too. Or, undergo serious reconstruction.
My guess is that the Instagram post aims to address the ways that a particular English was forced upon indigenous and enslaved peoples in America. Within these groups, new forms of English emerged with unique linguistic features woven throughout. These dialects were mocked or chastised away.
“It’s sort of a thing that good grammar is sexy.”
The subjugation of indigenous and enslaved peoples by way of language is a terrible fact of American history. Who knows what wonderful music, literature, and oral tradition might exist today if it hadn’t happened? The answer, however, is not to attack a language or its rules, but to allow languages to evolve and to embrace that process.
Even still, if a language evolves into various dialects and versions, this does not necessarily mean that fundamental rules of grammar and spelling should be dismissed or ignored.
It’s worth considering the difference between informal and formal language. In informal, spoken English, there is a lot of elasticity. We use slang words, abbreviations, we allow for subject-verb disagreement, and there is plenty of space for colloquialisms, regional dialect, etc. There are so many versions/dialects of English, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom alone, that flexibility is a defining feature of the language. In the five and a half years I lived in the UK, I never had someone correct me when I said sidewalk instead of pavement, or toilet paper instead of loo roll, or elevator instead of lift. Not only that, but some of the rules of grammar “soften” naturally when we are speaking. Many of us have tried voice-activated text messaging or emails, only to be horrified at how many errors exist in our spoken English when it appears on the phone. We’ve grown used to being able to speak in such a way that bends the rules slightly. It’s simply a feature of English.
But maybe our Instagram poster means we should avoid “correcting someone else’s spelling or grammar” in written English. Because how do you even know how someone might spell a word while they are speaking?
To “decondition yourself” from spelling and grammar rules in written, formal English seems a bit odd as an act of resistance against colonization—or anything for that matter. For starters, why risk communicating in a way that is less likely to be understood? Writing is a more deliberate task than speaking. As a result, it is generally slower, and the choices that we make are more measured. If you’re going to take out your phone or your pen to write something, and you’ve exerted that level of effort, you’ve already complied with a handful of unspoken norms (rules?). You might as well take the time, if you’re going to go through the physical effort of writing, to submit to the conventions of the language.
Besides, written language implies order, just like playing a game implies rules. Omit rules and you do not have a game; you just have people running around wildly. You can attempt to communicate in written English without following grammatical rules, but some people are likely to respond in the same way they would if you ignored the rules of checkers but insisted on playing: they’d walk away baffled.
“Far from reinforcing hierarchies, grammar is a democratizing, equalizing force.”
There is already a lovely, unique tension between the wildly diverse nuances of informal, spoken English across the world – all of those exceptions to exceptions to exceptions to the rules – and the more solid conventions of written, formal English. This balance seems to accommodate so much that a rebellion against formal rules just seems a bit silly.
Besides, there is irony in labeling grammar as a force to be ignored, when it is deemed offensive or oppressive in relation to gender identity and pronouns. If grammar is malleable and arbitrary, then using the “correct” pronoun surely becomes less urgent. Just this month, women prisoners in the UK were threatened with longer sentences if they called transgender inmates “he” or “him.” It seems a bit strange to hear, on the one hand, that grammar should be resisted on the grounds of colonialism, but then on the other, that it is extremely important “to use the correct pronouns.”
What’s more, it’s sad to consider the unfavorable view of “correction” in the original Instagram post. Correction is not always about power. It can be – ahem– about nurture. When I corrected my students’ writing, it was not out of a spirit of authoritarian control. After all, I was following all of the same rules myself.
I didn’t seek to perpetuate imperialism or colonization when I taught my tenth graders the American comma rules. I simply wanted my students to see that spelling, punctuation, and grammar are directly linked to meaning. This fact is so obvious that I all do have is & sentence this treehouse around yesterday was if want I, sayeth.
Many of the most successful resistance movements – the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, for example – chose to wield language masterfully as a tool for social change. Martin Luther King’s use of anaphora, varying syntax, biblical and classical allusions, rhyme, and other rhetorical devices makes his speeches not only political bombshells but astounding works of art. Maybe they were so effective in instituting change because they were linguistically excellent?
The Instagram post says that “if someone’s meaning is clear, don’t correct.” But comprehension alone is a cheap baseline. If the primary function of reading or writing is a rudimentary understanding of a message, we might as well just send symbols, photographs, or emoji.
That colonization has left a dark shadow across literature, language, art, and other elements of culture is a sad fact of the modern world. But the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bath water, and chuck commas, colons, and verbs out the window into a babbling brook of nonsense. Nor is the solution to saturate the world with words like “decondition” and “hierarchy.” Navigating the difficulties of the post-colonial world is tricky enough. It’ll be even trickier if we decide that grammar is part of the problem.
Let’s leave those commas alone. In the name of equity, don’t defund the grammar police.
