In school, grammar was always one of the subjects that came most easily to me. It was a set of arbitrary rules with one singular purpose: to make clear, without a shadow of a doubt, just exactly what it was the writer or speaker wanted to communicate.
Proper English has strict guidelines that dictate language beyond communicating one's ideas. Never ending a sentence with a proposition, for example, is a rule set up because your sentence sounds nicer that way, not because it affects the message one is trying to express.
To correct one's grammar in an academic paper is necessary; if one is going to write such a paper, one must use their education to write correctly.
To correct one's grammar in a casual conversation is obnoxious; if one understands what the other is trying to say despite the use of "ain't" or some other, similar example, then they should kindly refrain from correcting one's speech simply because it is not entirely "proper."
If one's grammar is so horrendous as to render one's speech unintelligible, perhaps at that time one can be corrected.
There are other forms of communication, of course. Novels, scripts, essays, poems are all forms of creative writing that play around with the rules of grammar depending on the exact tone one wants to set.
Their Eyes Were Watching God is grammatically very different than, say, Pride & Prejudice, but that does not make one novel lesser than the other.
Even in Their Eyes Were Watching God, however, there was some adherence to structure, and when Hurston diverged from the path of proper grammar, she did so with a very express purpose. She did so to highlight a point she was making about a person's personality or background or education level.
In today's world, major online publications will post articles without fully proofreading them, and grammar mistakes abound. Most of the time, the reader can reasonably understand what the writer is trying to say, but there have been a few instances where the grammar is so poor that the reader cannot understand the message of the blog at all.
Even if the reader can understand what the writer is trying to express, does that excuse the writer from misusing the English language, especially when said writer is trying to create a living for him or herself using the written word? No, it does not. Mistakes should not make it to print.
They do, though. A quick perusal of any of the Gawker websites will demonstrate this concept. Some sites are more focused on quickness of reporting and volume of articles they need to push out.
This tendency has seeped into most pop culture blogging sites. Proofreading seems to be almost archaic. If there's an edgy joke in there, or a salient point, or some halfway decent analysis, the article's poor grammar goes unnoticed.
This begs the question: are we doing a disservice to our language, or are we freeing ourselves from the constraints of nonsensical rules written centuries before our birth?
It depends on the medium, and it depends on the grammar mistake. Blogging is by its nature informal. It is perfectly acceptable to use informal speech in a blog post. However, if it's clear the grammar issue is a mistake rather than on purpose, the writer should consider reading through before posting his or her thoughts.
Using the wrong "their" for example, is distracting. Beginning a sentence with an "and" or a "but" is acceptable if the writer does so with a purpose in mind, assuming the format is supposed to be more casual.
With more formal writing it is imperative, as always, to use proper grammar.
The English language is constantly changing, constantly growing. Alright is a word now. Who knows what else can happen?
However, to assume grammar is a meaningless set of rules with no purpose will ultimately hurt one's writing. Boundaries and rules force a writer to work within that framework to better oneself.
By boundaries in writing, I am also including curse words. Curse words, when used sparingly, can force the reader to understand the gravity of the situation. I am guilty of over-using curse words. I will defend the right to use them, but not to over-use them. Too many curse words are for shock value only, nothing more, and this is something I have tried to fix in my last couple of posts.
(What number is "too many" is of course up for debate.)
Can one imagine if Shakespeare had been allowed to write his plays without any grammar boundaries whatsoever? What kind of mess would he have created? What if Mae West had been allowed to curse in public? What would have happened to her sly, subtle wit?
Grammar is still taught in schools, but college-educated writers online that presumably make a living with their craft are more and more guilty of eschewing grammatical tradition in order to make an earlier deadline. In some ways, strict adherence to grammar is considered outdated. However, if this is how one makes one's living, it is important to do the job as well as possible.
I retain full rights to spell the word "h8" however I'd like to prove a point.
No comments:
Post a Comment