Language Snobbery: An Editor’s Opinion
(16-minute read)
At one stage or another, you’ve likely come across someone who can’t resist pointing out the missing apostrophe in “Youre a bigot”. These people go by many names – some proudly call themselves ‘pedants’, ‘grammaticasters’, or ‘grammar snobs’, whilst the wider English-speaking community might refer to them using more explicit language. This article discusses why their snobby habit of grammar policing needs to become a thing of the past.
Before we can dive into this discussion, we must understand what grammar is: a complex combination of systems which provides structure for language to hang on. All languages follow some sort of grammatical structure – without it, communication would be difficult. Of word a is example order this great (word order is a great example of this).
Almost every language follows a unique set of grammatical rules (I say ‘almost’ because some might suggest body language, music, or dance as examples of languages without grammar). Furthermore, grammar can vary across different dialects within the same language depending on the context.
This flexibility is one of my favourite things about language. It’s also the part that most English-grammar snobs overlook — instead, they advocate for a common set of rules for all English speakers to follow. They want a ‘standard’ English. The question is: why? To answer this question, we must first understand the two schools of thought on what ‘correct’ grammar entails: prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar.
Prescriptive grammar suggests that English has only one correct or acceptable form which is the way the language should be used. The prescriptive approach requires a ‘standard’ form: the aforementioned common set of rules. To understand where this standard form comes from, we must take a quick look at its history.
Descriptive grammar suggests that whatever grammar is being used and understood in practice is correct (communication is, after all, the purpose of language).
By definition, grammar snobs favour the prescriptive approach, whilst many linguists favour the descriptive approach whilst acknowledging that if we want our communication to be effective, efficient and something to celebrate, we must let the two schools combine. Prescriptive grammar provides us with structure, whilst descriptive grammar allows us to decorate that structure with a language that reflects the given context.
Descriptive language is made by those who speak it, but the ‘standard’ set of rules which create the prescriptive version of any language has almost always universally been made by the ruling classes. This can be seen cross-culturally throughout history. Those in power are those with the status, ego and financial means to make dictionaries, prescribe language and enforce the common use of their linguistic rules.
When the Normans invaded England in 1066, they brought with them Norman French, which became the language of the ruling class for the following three centuries. Most of the population still spoke in English, and Latin was the language of the church. Norman French had a huge impact on English language, influencing grammar, pronunciation, and spelling. Since then, the prescriptive English language has seen several changes under Chaucer, Caxton, Shakespeare, and a long list of other white men.
Meanwhile, descriptive English was taken around the world in the form of colonisation. The English forced their language upon people outside of Britain, often erasing native languages and dialects in the process, deliberately or otherwise. This also happened to non-native-English speakers within Britain in the 18th and 19th century when millions of people were stolen from Africa to be forced into slavery by Britons. At the same time, words from various languages around the world began to be used by native-English speakers when convenient as they came into contact with unfamiliar words both inside and outside of Britain.
When we consider this (very brief) summary of the history of English language, the power imbalance that prescriptive language is born from and perpetuates becomes apparent. This may begin to explain why grammar snobs are so often older, wealthier, and whiter than the people whose descriptive language they treat with such condescension. Grammar snobs are, more often than not, the descendants of those who created prescriptive language, and the ones who continue to benefit from it.
Grammar snobs benefit from prescriptive grammar in a number of ways. To understand this, we must consider the many privileges involved in their grammar snobbery.
If you are privileged enough to be attending or to have attended university, you’re more likely to use ‘Standard’ English. If you’ve read this far, you’re likely aware of the privilege involved in getting to such settings to start with: those with class privilege, light skin, financial wealth, neurotypical ability, access to education, etc. are much more likely to find themselves in a university setting or a white-collar professional atmosphere. Academics write the rules from this position of privilege, meaning only those with such privilege can access such spaces, and the cycle self-perpetuates as such, keeping the privileged in positions of privilege and the oppressed in positions of oppression.
But language snobbery isn’t limited to written text – it can often extend to the accents, pronunciation, and timbre of spoken language. If you don’t sound like Hugh Laurie in ‘House’, or Hugh Laurie in ‘Friends’, grammar snobs might have something to say about it (you can have an Australian accent though, as long as it’s not *too* Australian). Too urban? Too rural? Too much vocal fry? Got a speech impediment? There seems to be no end to the ways in which language snobs are willing to discriminate based on language use.
There are many different dialects of English. Your teenage sibling might use a different dialect at home or at a job interview. Many Black Americans use African-American Vernacular English (AAVE), which is often called Ebonics and recognised as a language in its own right, and many Brits speak Multicultural London English (MLE). English speakers in South Africa, Ireland, Canada, Pakistan and England may all speak in different dialects and be understood equally because each dialect has grammatical structure. Language must have grammatical structure in order to be understood by anyone.
If it is a variation of English with a grammatical structure, it is a dialect of English. It is English. But too often, the English that white people are more likely to speak is positioned as ‘standard’ English. This positions white people’s English as ‘better’, perpetuating the racist hierarchy.
Consider for a moment how often those using language snobbery to derail arguments and silence people are referred to as ‘Grammar Nazis’; a grotesque and extremely politically and emotionally charged name. Perhaps this is reflective of the self-imposed superiority that grammar snobs wield to belittle the often already oppressed using an increasingly outdated tool created by white, wealthy, powerful men.
In most cases, the ‘mistakes’ grammar snobs highlight really don’t matter at all, but are used as a tool to silence people and derail debates. English is a language born from other languages and heavily modified since. Over a third of English words in common usage today come from Norman French. As the world around us changes, so does our language – this is not a bad thing. If we tried to use the language we used in England 500 years ago, we wouldn’t have found a word for ‘shampoo’; 100 years ago, you wouldn’t have been able to describe someone as ‘introverted’; and you wouldn’t find ‘facepalm’ in the dictionary until the 21st century.
Grammar snobs are not a 21st century phenomenon, they’re a seriously outdated one. Whilst good linguists are celebrating the ever-evolving nature of language, grammar snobs are being left behind. In their pursuits to use outdated versions of English language to silence those who might already be struggling to speak up, they out themselves as racist, xenophobic, classist, ableist bigots.
I’m an editor; I appreciate prescriptive grammar and I’m fascinated by it, but I do not demand it. ‘Standard’ English has its uses, but there is no place for ridiculing those who do not use it. Besides, where is the fun in ‘Standard’ English?
Moving forward, let’s strive instead to listen to what others have to say, and focus less on the grammar with which they say it. Social justice requires good communication; placing limitations on our use of language does not encourage this.
History has shown us how the restriction of language can be used to oppress people. It’s time we learn instead to celebrate language, to acknowledge its ability to adapt and evolve, and lean in! The goal of any language is communication; if you’re making yourself understood, you’re doing it right. But there’s more than just being understood; we communicate every day, so let’s allow ourselves to enjoy it! By playing with language, bending it and shaping it to suit our needs, we can communicate powerfully and clearly with fun, wit, and nuance, and create space for others to join us without fear of discrimination in the process.
As an editor and copywriter, I recognise the space available for nuance within language. This doesn’t mean ignoring mistakes or grammatical errors where they are not stylistically relevant. When copywriting a piece for a content producer or working with an author to edit their project, I take joy in understanding their tone and amplifying their voice. This involves discussions about certain elements they may have left in which other authors may have chosen not to, from abbreviations to dangling modifiers. I keep my clients informed about the implications of certain stylistic choices as well as the benefits and drawbacks of working with various style guides. My goal on any project is to preserve my client’s voice and amplify their message by ensuring it is communicated clearly for the maximum enjoyment of the intended audience.
If your writing style is pithy and accessible, I won’t make it sound like it was written by anyone who might be caught wearing a cummerbund. If your piece is intended to impress Very Important People, I’ll ensure your writing style favours their preferences.
The main purpose of any language is communication. It’s time to find joy in that process, and leave snobbery behind.