# What is Grammar? ### Will Styler - LIGN 1 --- ### Today's Plan - What is grammar? - Why is grammar difficult? - Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar --- ### Previously, on LIGN 1... - We talked about some things that make Language, Language - ... but we skipped a step! --- ### Characteristic #3 ## Speakers have knowledge of grammar and the 'rules' of language --- ## Grammar - The unconscious rules that language users follow when they form and understand language --- ### Grammaticality Judgements - Some things sound 'like English' and are comprehensible - Some things are not English - These are also known as 'language intuitions' or 'linguistic intuitions' --- ### You can make grammaticality judgements - 'John went to the park with Tamara' - 'Walk Rick gate Johnny between' - 'The moose fiendishly decalcified the hieroglyphics between the Dagestani Giraffes' - 'Somebody set up us the bomb. All your base are belong to us.' --- ### Grammaticality judgements are about language, not individual words - 'Gleeble' - A small fish - 'To Garflabble' - To perform an elaborate mating display - 'Flundubble' - A large octopus-like creature --- 'Gleeble' - A small fish 'To Garflabble' - To perform an elaborate mating display 'Flundubble' - A large octopus-like creature <section class="clicker"></section> ### Is the sentence 'Twelve Flundubble garflabbling gleeble.' grammatical? A) Yes B) No --- 'Gleeble' - A small fish 'To Garflabble' - To perform an elaborate mating display 'Flundubble' - A large octopus-like creature <section class="clicker"></section> ### Is the sentence 'Gleebles garflabble for flundubbles all the time.' grammatical? A) Yes B) No --- ### (and by the way, how do we know the plural of 'gleeble'?) --- <img class="r-stretch" src="humorimg/conspiracykeanu.jpg" alt="conspiracykeanu.jpg The image shows a close-up of an individual with shoulder-length dark brown hair that appears slightly wavy. The person is wearing what seems to be a white shirt and possibly a dark jacket or blazer. Their expression looks somewhat surprised, as their mouth is slightly open and eyes are wide. In the background, there's another person partially visible on the left side of the image. This individual has lighter hair that appears to be styled in a way that it falls over one shoulder. The background seems to have some greenery or foliage, suggesting an outdoor setting with natural light illuminating the scene. There are no clear texts or diagrams present in this image. This description was generated automatically from image files by a local LLM, and thus, may not be fully accurate. Please feel free to ask questions if you have further questions about the nature of the image or its meaning within the presentation."> * (Nah, it's just phonology) --- ### There's Grammar in Speech and Gesture, too! - "Did John go to the park last week?" - "Let's eat, Grandma!" - The Grocery List - "The Exit's over there" --- ### Is the following sequence grammatical? - You've arrived at the Post Office at 7:01pm, and they close at 7pm --- ### We as speakers have strong feelings about the 'correctness' and 'rules' of language - ... but not so much for other kinds of basic communicative gestures - So, this is yet another element of Language --- ### Characteristic #3 ## Speakers have knowledge of grammar and the 'rules' of language --- ## Grammar feels easy! - ... but is it actually easy? --- ### Judgements can be more subtle - There looks to be a problem outside - There sounds to be somebody in there - There smells to be something rotten in there - There feels to be something in the bag - There tastes to be an issue with the cookies --- ### Grammaticality Meter Time! - My cat needs groomed. - They not like us. - My tia ha comprado some snacks and a cake para tu cumple. - You might should study more linguistics. --- ### We don't always agree on what's grammatical - Different dialects have different rules that they follow - No people are 'without grammar', they just have different grammar - Different groups of people use language differently - When you have multiple languages, you can blend their grammars easily! - **Different people have different grammars, and disagree on how grammatical something is!** --- ### Linguists are interested in how *everybody* talks - Not just one prestigious or 'correct' variety - Not just the 'academic' or 'mainstream' dialects - Not just what goes in textbooks or dictionaries - ... and as such ... --- ### We don't tend to believe in a 'correct variety' of a language - It's hard to pin down which one *would be* correct - "Which region or group or person is right?" - The situationally 'correct or 'appropriate' variety is about social context - "That variety is bad here" does not mean "That variety is bad" - **'Correct' is a social judgement, not a linguistic one** --- ### So, grammar is weird - 'Grammatical isn't just 'good' or 'bad', there are states in the middle! - We have grammar for spoken language and gesture too - Different people have different grammars, and disagree on how grammatical something is - "Correct" is a social judgement, more than a fact about language --- ### Yet, people have *strong* feelings about 'good grammar' - Let's talk about that --- ## 'Good Grammar' is complicated --- ### One more set of judgments - I never know what I should start with - I don't know who you must of saw outside Fan Fan - I hope to considerably advance your grammatical knowledge - You're professor thinks your all kind people - I ain't likely to tell a good joke today, irregardless of your shaming - **These sentences violate some 'grammar rules'** --- ### These things feel a bit different - You've probably heard people say things like this before - They're easy to understand, even while being 'wrong' - This is a *different kind of 'ungrammatical'* --- ### We can understand this difference intuitively - To answer this, I'll ask two simple questions --- ### What's the speed limit on the 5? - How fast do people *actually drive* on the 5? --- ### What side of the road do we drive on in San Diego? - What side do we *actually* drive on in San Diego? --- ### There are rules that people *always* follow, because otherwise things go badly - ... and rules that are imposed, but often not followed - People follow them mostly when police are watching --- ### So, we should think of *two kinds of grammar* - Descriptive Grammar - "How do people actually use language?" - Prescriptive Grammar - "How do some people say other people *should* use language?" --- ## Descriptive vs. Prescriptive grammar --- ### Descriptive Grammar The grammatical rules of the language variety being spoken which *describe* how (a group of) people *actually talk or write*. --- ### "The boy flame take watchingsly" is descriptively ungrammatical - 'Grammatical' sentences are in harmony with the local rules - People 'stumble' over ungrammatical sentences - **When something is descriptively ungrammatical, it's often hard to understand** - Although not all hard-to-understand sentences are ungrammatical! --- ### Symbol Usage Note Linguists mark ungrammatical sentences with a star, questionable ones with a ? - *The boy flame take watchingsly - ?Which friends has Thomas painted a picture of them? --- ### Different people, groups, and regions have their own different grammars - Every language variety has a grammar that users know and understand - ... and they follow it! --- ### African American English - Also known as 'AAVE' (African American Vernacular English) or problematically, 'Ebonics' - Negative Concord - Can't nobody say he don't work - *Nobody can say he doesn't work. - Habitual be - He be drivin all over the place - *He often drives all over the place lately - Copula deletion - They not like us - *They are not like us - **These grammatical rules are followed carefully by speakers of AAE** --- ### It is patently false to claim that Black (or Chicano, Southern, etc) speakers 'have no grammar' - Damnit. - They use the grammar of their language variety as carefully as you do yours! --- ### So, people *actually follow* descriptive grammar rules of the language variety - Contrast that with... --- ### Prescriptive Grammar Made up or social rules that *prescribe* how people *should* talk or write --- ### The 'rules' are generally formalized and taught - I never know what I should start with - "Never end a sentence with a preposition" - I don't know who you must of saw outside Fan Fan - "'whom' should be used for a direct object, and you mean 'must have'" - I ain't likely to tell a good joke today, irregardless of your shaming - "Aint and Irregardless aren't words!!!!1!" - I hope to considerably advance your grammatical knowledge - "How dare you split an infinitive!" --- ### Prescriptive grammar rules are social rules - They are not universally observed - They do not generally affect your ability to be understood - They're often based in written ambiguity (e.g. there, they're, their) - They're often quoted from one particular source (Strunk and White, 🤣) - They're often associated with a specific setting or institution --- ### Nobody *ever* says "Flames up the gobble watch purpleing" - Yet people mix up 'there' and 'their' and 'they're' all the time - People literally misuse literally - Ain't ain't so uncommon - People say irregardless, regardless of your feelings --- ### What other prescriptive grammar rules are you familiar with? --- ### Let's work on that distinction a bit more --- ### Which of these rules is a *descriptive* grammar rule? A) "Say 'I'll make do', not 'I'll make due'" B) "All sentences must include a verb in English" C) "Always include the punctuation inside the quote" D) "In-text citations should be surrounded by parentheses" E) "Emojis cannot be used in professional correspondence" <section class="clicker"></section> --- ### Which of these rules is a *descriptive* grammar rule? A) "Say 'I'll make do', not 'I'll make due'" B) <correct>"All sentences must include a verb in English"</correct> C) "Always include the punctuation inside the quote". D) "In-text citations should be surrounded by parentheses" E) "Emojis cannot be used in professional correspondence" --- ### Which of these sentences is a *descriptively* ungrammatical? A) "Me and Mark are going clubbing" B) "I hate polar bears, there paws are too big." C) "Frank Suzanne live Dallas" D) "Herbert ain't gone to the store yet" E) "Michael Bay luvs 2 desecrate good cartoonz." <section class="clicker"></section> --- ### Which of these sentences is a *descriptively* ungrammatical? A) "Me and Mark are going clubbing" B) "I hate polar bears, there paws are too big." C) <correct>"Frank Suzanne live Dallas"</correct> D) "Herbert ain't gone to the store yet" E) "Michael Bay luvs 2 desecrate good cartoonz. " --- ### Linguists are interested in *descriptive grammar* - We don't believe there is a 'correct' variety - A rule which a large number of people don't follow isn't a real rule - ... or it's not a rule in all dialects - And if you speak a non-standard variety, we think that's awesome! --- ### Again: These grammars do different things - Descriptive grammar tells how people talk - Prescriptive grammar tells people how they should talk --- ### Telling people how they should talk is pretty tricky business - Whose speech, exactly, is 'correct'? - Who updates these rules when language changes? - When is it appropriate to switch to a different set of rules? - When is it a good idea to correct people? - This isn't easy because... --- ### Attacking people's language is often used as a covert way of attacking people - "Irregardless?! You can't even write a YouTube comment, let alone have a valid opinion!" - "Swearing is a sign of an unevolved mind!" - "Somebody needs to teach these inner-city kids to be more articulate" - "You're so shrill, you should be more lady-like in your speech" - ["Damned teenage girls filling their speech with [insert thing we all do]"](https://www.npr.org/2015/07/23/425608745/from-upspeak-to-vocal-fry-are-we-policing-young-womens-voices) --- ### Whole languages get similar ideological treatments - People love describing languages as 'rough' or 'unevolved' or 'angry' or 'primitive' or 'romantic' (and so on) - These ideas are generally not supported by or evaluable in linguistic theory! - They often cite characteristics found in huge numbers of languages as 'evidence' of this - These are usually social judgements applied to people via their languages - ... rather than facts about the languages themselves - Be careful with these kinds of language ideologies, as they can be hurtful - ... and ask yourself why and how they're being discussed! --- ### Many people mean well when making prescriptive corrections! - There's value to learning how to talk like the Old People with Power want you to talk - Learning to code-switch among your langauge varieties is a useful skill - It's nice to help people new to a language learn how it "should" work - You're allowed to be quietly annoyed by silly, random things - ... but remember that some people face a constant barrage of attack for their language - Some people's very linguistic identity is treated as 'wrong' or 'scary' or 'profane' --- ### Even if you're policing grammar because you mean well, you generally sound like people who don't! --- ### This is why Linguists don't like being called 'grammarians' - It's why we spend so much time talking about the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar in LIGN 101 - ... and it's why we'll spend the rest of the quarter talking about descriptive grammar, rather than prescriptive grammar --- # Wrapping up - Grammar is the set of rules which describe how speakers do langauge - Different languages and varieties have different grammars - Descriptive grammar describes how people *actually talk* - Prescriptive grammar prescribes what somebody *thinks* should be said - Linguists care about descriptive grammar, and don't tend to buy into 'prescriptive rules' --- ## For next time - We'll talk about variation in langauge across regions, social groups, and people - Don't be a pedantic twit about language --- <huge>Thank you!</huge>