English Usage Controversies

In the English language, there are grammatical constructions that many native speakers use unquestioningly yet certain writers call incorrect. Differences of usage or opinion may stem from differences between formal and informal speech and other matters of register, differences among dialects (whether regional, class-based, or other), and so forth. Disputes may arise when style guides disagree with each other, or when a guideline or judgement is confronted by large amounts of conflicting evidence or has its rationale challenged.

Examples

Some of the sources that consider some of the following examples incorrect consider the same examples to be acceptable in dialects other than Standard English or in an informal register; others consider certain constructions to be incorrect in any variety of English. On the other hand, many or all of the following examples are considered correct by some sources.
* Generic ''you'' – e.g., "Brushing your teeth is a good habit" as opposed to "Brushing one's teeth is a good habit"
* Singular ''they'' – e.g., "Somebody left their sweater" or "My friend left their sweater here"

* Flat adverbs – e.g., "to boldly go where no man has gone before" as opposed to "to go boldly where no man has gone before"
* Conjunction beginning a sentence – e.g., "But Dad said not to jump on the bed!"
* Double genitive – e.g. "a friend of theirs" as opposed to "a friend of them" or "their friend"
* Using "me" vs. "I" in the subject complement ("It's me" as opposed to "It's I" or "It is I") or other cases – e.g., "Me and Bob" vs. "Bob and I"
::''It's me again.''
* Using "I" vs. "me" in the oblique case, e.g., "He gave the ball to Bob and I" instead of "He gave the ball to Bob and me". This is often called a hypercorrection, since it is perceived as related to avoidance of the stigmatized incorrect use of the oblique form. See Between you and I.
* The validity of ''aren't'' as a negative first-person singular conjunction for ''to be'' in interrogative uses – e.g., "Aren't I the one you were talking about?"
* The grammatical means for marking counterfactuality – e.g., "I wish I were/was an Oscar Meyer wiener" and "If the pandemic didn't happen/hadn't happened".
* Whether to use ''who'' or ''whom'' in various contexts
* The use of ''less'' or ''fewer'' with count nouns
* Double negatives – e.g., "We don't need no education"
* Certain double modals – e.g., "You might could do it" – not considered standard, but used for example in Southern American English
* Double copula – e.g., "What has to happen is, is that the money has to come from somewhere"
* Preposition stranding – e.g., "You have nothing to be afraid of" (vs. "You have nothing of which to be afraid") – criticized by grammarians in the 1600s by analogy with Latin grammar and by some teachers since, though many have always accepted it as part of standard English
* Distinction or lack of it between the past and past participle forms of the verb – e.g. "I should have ''went''" and "I ''done'' that yesterday".
* Order of quoted punctuation marks, i.e., American style ("Many dreams were characterized as 'raw,' 'powerful,' and 'evocative) vs. British style ('Many dreams were characterised as "raw", "powerful" and "evocative). Some American authorities (such as the APA and CMS) require the former, while others (such as the LSA) allow, prefer, or require the latter.
* Whether the verbs ''open/close'' to denote '' turn on/turn off'' can be used as English collocations (i.e. "Open the lights, please" for "Turn on the lights, please"). The expression is a metaphrase and is common among nonnative English speakers of Hebrew, Croatian, Filipino, French, Thai, Chinese, Greek, Italian descent, and also among French Canadians (or speakers of Quebec English), where "open" and "close" for "on" and "off" are used instead. This construction is grammatically correct but only out of context. The calquing and linguistic transfer make this construction foreign to other English speakers.

Several proscriptions concern matters of writing style and clarity but not grammatical correctness:
* Dangling modifiers (including dangling participles) are often cited as potentially causing confusion.
* Various style guides warn writers to avoid the passive voice.
* Gender neutrality in English:
** Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns – Replacing masculine pronouns where they are meant to refer to a person of either gender with both masculine and feminine pronouns, alternative phrasing, the singular they or newly invented words like "hir" and "ze"
** Terms for humans in general – Replacing nouns like "mankind" with "humankind"
** Gender marking in job titles – Replacing nouns like "chairman" and "manpower" with alternatives like "chairperson" and "staffing levels"
** Use of Ms. for equality with Mr., as opposed to Miss and Mrs., which do not have masculine equivalents.

For an alphabetical list of disputes concerning a single word or phrase, see List of English words with disputed usage.

Factors in disputes

The following circumstances may feature in disputes:

Myths and superstitions

There are a number of alleged rules of unclear origin that have no rational basis or are based on things such as misremembered rules taught in school. They are sometimes described by authorities as superstitions or myths. These include rules such as not beginning sentences with "and" or "because" or not ending them with prepositions. See common English usage misconceptions.

No central authority

Unlike some languages, such as French (which has the Académie française), English has no single authoritative governing academy, so assessments of correctness are made by "self-appointed authorities who, reflecting varying judgments of acceptability and appropriateness, often disagree."

Education

While some variations in the use of language correlate with age, sex , ethnic group, or region, others may be taught in schools and be preferred in the context of interaction with strangers. These forms may also gain prestige as the standard language of professionals, politicians, etc., and be called Standard English (SE), whereas forms associated with less educated speakers may be called nonstandard (or less commonly substandard) English.

Stigma

The prescriptivist tradition may affect attitudes toward certain usages and thus the preferences of some speakers.

Hypercorrection

Because of the stigma attached to violating prescriptivist norms, speakers and writers sometimes incorrectly extend usage rules beyond their scope in attempting to avoid mistakes.

Classical languages

Prescriptivist arguments about various English constructions' correctness have sometimes been based on Latin grammar.

Analogy with other constructions

It is sometimes argued that a certain usage is more logical than another, or that it is more consistent with other usages, by analogy with different grammatical constructions. For instance, it may be argued that the accusative form must be used for the components of a coordinate construction where it would be used for a single pronoun.

Speakers and writers frequently do not consider it necessary to justify their positions on a particular usage, taking its correctness or incorrectness for granted. In some cases, people believe an expression to be incorrect partly because they also falsely believe it to be newer than it really is.

Prescription and description

It is often said that the difference between ''prescriptivist'' and ''descriptivist'' approaches is that the former prescribes how English ''should'' be spoken and written and the latter describes how English ''is'' spoken and written, but this is an oversimplification. Prescriptivist works may contain claims about the incorrectness of various common English constructions, but they also deal with topics other than grammar, such as style. Prescriptivists and descriptivists differ in that, when presented with evidence that purported rules disagree with most native speakers' actual usage, the prescriptivist may declare that those speakers are wrong, whereas the descriptivist will assume that the usage of the overwhelming majority of native speakers defines the language, and that the prescriptivist has an idiosyncratic view of correct usage. Particularly in older prescriptivist works, recommendations may be based on personal taste, confusion between informality and ungrammaticality, or arguments related to other languages, such as Latin.

Different forms of English

English internationally

English is spoken worldwide, and the Standard Written English grammar generally taught in schools around the world will vary only slightly. Nonetheless, disputes can sometimes arise: for example, it is a matter of some debate in India whether British, American, or Indian English is the best form to use.

Regional dialects and ethnolects

In contrast to their generally high level of tolerance for the dialects of other English-speaking countries, speakers often express disdain for features of certain regional or ethnic dialects, such as Southern American English's use of ''y'all'', Geordies' use of "yous" as the second person plural personal pronoun, and nonstandard forms of "to be" such as "The old dock bes under water most of the year" (Newfoundland English) or "That dock be under water every other week" ( African-American Vernacular English).

Such disdain may not be restricted to points of grammar; speakers often criticize regional accents and vocabulary as well. Arguments related to regional dialects must center on questions of what constitutes Standard English. For example, since fairly divergent dialects from many countries are widely accepted as Standard English, it is not always clear why certain regional dialects, which may be very similar to their standard counterparts, are not.

Register

Different constructions are acceptable in different registers of English. For example, a given construction will often be seen as too formal or too informal for a situation.

See also

* Barbarism (linguistics)
* List of dialects of English

References

Further reading

* {{cite book, author=Robert Lane Greene, year=2011, isbn=978-0553807875, title=You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity