- City Guides:
- New York
- San Francisco
- Chicago
- London
Written English is in danger, but not necessarily for the reasons you assume. Warring parties of grammarians, teachers, literacy activists, and politicians are addressing widespread linguistic changes by debating the risks and rewards of the language’s inevitable evolution. And yet, shifting conventions — whether perceived as beneficial or detrimental — don’t actually herald a literary apocalypse. Rather, the threat lies in the misapprehended implication that language and its written rules are static entities that can be regulated in tangible ways.
Purists continue to decry the corrosive impact of txt msging, lolspeak, and innumerable other Internetisms. TIME recently bemoaned the loss of quality control with the rise of self-publishing and blogs. Book World’s Dennis Drabelle defended the art of editing in The Washington Post, making the case that discerning editors perform an essential task mirrored throughout the echelons of mainstream culture.
On the other side of the spectrum, however, are those who claim that English isn’t changing fast enough. The Believer wrote about literacy activists picketing the Scripps National Spelling Bee to demand the simplification of English spelling. John Wells, Emeritus Professor of Phonetics at University College London and president of the Spelling Society, echoed their calls by arguing that the inconsistency of written English has hindered literacy among children and non-native speakers alike. As if to further bolster the case for simplified rules, Birmingham, home to Britain’s second largest urban population, recently decided to drop apostrophes from all street and road signs to promote consistency with those that already lack them.
Wherever you fall in this debate, there’s no need to start smashing your keyboard. English is, after all, a language principally characterized by its ability to adapt and adopt. Rather than fighting these fluctuations, why not embrace them by honing our understanding of the existing patterns and nuances of the written word? Here are our top five picks for the best guides to spelling, grammar, and proper punctuation (as they’re presently accepted):
Comma Sense: A Fun-damental Guide to Punctuation
by Richard Lederer and John Shore
As far as punctuation goes, most people border on near illiteracy. Richard Lederer’s widely read essay “Conan the Grammarian” established him as an expert on English language, and in Comma Sense, he adopts the same easy approach to the proper use of squiggles, lines, and dots.
Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies: A Guide to Language for Fun and Spite
by June Casagrande
Already a popular grammar columnist in LA, June Casagrande takes the tongue-wagging out of the grammar game with her patient and humorous writing. This book provides a no-nonsense overview that will appeal to anyone intimidated by literary elitists.
Things That Make Us [sic]: The Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar Takes on Madison Avenue, Hollywood, the White House, and the World
by Martha Brockenbrough
A snarky antidote to the bestselling Eats, Shoots & Leaves, this guide incorporates etymology and writing advice, while tackling the blunders of linguistic laziness.
Lapsing into a Comma: A Curmudgeon’s Guide to the Many Things That Can Go Wrong in Print — and How to Avoid Them
by Bill Walsh
As the chief copyeditor for the business section of The Washington Post, Bill Walsh is responsible for both accuracy and eloquence. Lapsing into a Comma focuses on the art of editing through attention to style and structure, illustrating the minutiae of punchy writing.
Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English (Second Edition)
by Patricia T. O’Conner
Written for those who dread grammar and all of its endless rules, this former New York Times Book Review editor’s concise volume is an engaging survey of the idiosyncrasies of the English language. Originally published in 2003; the follow-up edition features a chapter on email etiquette.
Flavorpill covers cultural events, art, books, music, and world news. Join now.
Email to a friend
Tweet
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
5 Responses
Most blogs are an editor's nightmare, but blogging itself need not be seen as synonymous with a loss of quality control. Plenty of blogs valiantly uphold the art of editing, whether explicitly or by example. We'd cite John McIntyre's "You Don't Say" in the former category and Dan Green's "The Reading Experience" in the latter, and we must also plug our own blog, "The Abbeville Manual of Style," written by a bunch of book editors (of the text-messaging generation, no less).
I am delighted to find so many new books on grammar today. Having grown up with only a Harbrace College Handbook and Strunk & White, I find it almost heady that I can indulge my obsession in those current offerings. As one who compulsively returns to my e-mail messages to check that I've placed every comma correctly before sending, I must confess, my fear is that we are raising a generation of "texters" who obviously possess not one iota of literary responsibility or respect. All those acronymyns and phonetics render me heartsick. Alas, our challenge lies not in the present state but in the future of the written word. I am so glad I will be six feet under when English finally goes to hell in a handbasket.
[...] http://flavorwire.com/10415/avoid-the-ap… [...]
[...] are about to crash the gates; on the other side are self-styled freedom-lovers who believe (as in this brief article) that the real threat to English comes from snobs who shackle it with artificial rules. In a [...]
Unfortunately, grammar has taken such a bad rap because of the wrong-headed and heavy-handed manner in which it is taught. Human language is an organic phenomenon and so are its grammars. The grammar of any given language is merely a description of the most prevalent trends of accepted usage. For many centuries, however, grammatical concepts of Latin were superimposed on English, with disastrous consequences. English has much more plasticity than Latin, especially in its verbs and its syntax. The preachy prescriptivists ruled the roost pretty much up to the mid 20th Century, when Noam Chomsky published his groundbreaking works on the concept of a "universal grammar". Linguistics then took a turn toward a more scientific approach of describing what was, rather than prescribing what should be. New generations of descriptivist grammarians have since redefined our common notions of linguistic competency. In my own work as a linguist and educator, I have always viewed grammar as the DNA of a given language. Especially for adult learners, there are few better shortcuts to language mastery than acquiring a solid understanding of key grammatical concepts. Far from cluttering the mind with endless rules and exceptions, a competent teaching of key grammar concepts actually achieves just the opposite; it provides a quick and readily usable template for the learner to superimpose over the language, freeing him up to try out new expressions within the parameters of that matrix. Arguing against grammar is just as absurd as arguing against the rules of arithmetic, the system of road signs, pavement markings, and traffic signals, or key scientific concepts like gravity. Just as we would be lost in the world if we lived in ignorance that 2+2 equals 4 or that red lights mean STOP and not GO, or that apples fall earthward and not skyward, so would our language be incomprehensible to us without a core set of understandings about its commonly accepted patterns. Grammar is simply a general description of how we use our language to accurately communicate with one another. Those who oppose grammar oppose the language itself.