Time for the Breakdown: How Low Should We Go?

Grammar, at least in the English language, is a beautiful thing. It allows us to communicate with each other, to begin to understand the grammar systems of other languages, and to maintain a sense of uniformity in the professional world, among other reasons. Its purposes are many and most of the time, it seems as though our use of grammar in speech or in writing comes naturally or instinctually. But the world of grammar is an extremely structured and detailed one that calls for consistency, memorization and straight logic. Somewhere along the way, grammar got broken down into countless different rules regarding sentence structure, comma usage, quotation mark usage, verb forms, capitalization, and so on and so on and so on. There are many advantages to this uniformity and detail of our grammar system. Sometimes. But at what point do the complexity and thoroughness of the details of our grammar system become arbitrary, tedious, and distracting from the larger picture of why we have grammar to begin with? Is there a line that needs to be drawn in terms of our breakdown of grammar? Could all of these grammar rules actually be hurting us, in some ways, more than helping us?

Our world is a complicated place. We have laws to abide by, appointments to make, relationships to tend to and primal needs to meet. Try to cram all of these things into a 24-hour time period and daily life can begin to seem pretty hectic. So why do we take something that seems to naturally connect all of us on some level— language—and divide it, rearrange it, turn it on its head, standardize it and then un-standardize it, categorize it, invite it over for dinner and then turn it away when it knocks on the door when, really, if we pushed all of this aside, we could make our lives much more simple for ourselves?

Maybe it’s because as human beings we (pronoun) need control. We need to set guidelines so that we know exactly and easily (adverb) when something is “right” or “wrong” (according to our construction of what is right or wrong). (parenthetical aside) Maybe it’s because we like to use and create reference tools. See dictionary, almanac, internet, thesaurus, encyclopedia, Lonely Planet, (serial comma) etc. (imperative mood) Maybe it’s because someone came up with this idea of “grammar” to pass the time and the idea somehow got into the wrong hands—a pair of very anal, logically-minded, organized hands— (em dash) that turned it into an unforgiving and systematic (adjective) hierarchy of rules. Whatever the reason, we have come to a situation where we stand scratching our heads as we try to distinguish between simple and complex sentences, where it can take longer to create a “Works Cited” page than it does to write (infinitive verb form) the entire paper with (preposition) which it is associated, and where, after referencing multiple editions of academic grammar books, we still can’t (contraction) determine how to “correctly” execute the subjunctive mood.

As I mentioned earlier, grammar is essential to our world. I am not saying that grammar as a whole or that certain parts of grammar are useless. In a countless number of instances the correct use of grammar is very necessary and wholly appreciated. For example, the sentence, “Unfortunately, the resale shop was full of wrinkled little girls’ dresses” creates quite a different image than does the sentence, “Unfortunately, the resale shop was full of little girls’ wrinkled dresses.” A wrinkled little girl is slightly more disconcerting than is a wrinkled dress. Attention to syntax in a situation like this is imperative and completely understandable. Similarly, the incorrect comma usage (subject) in the following sentence alters the intended meaning of the speaker: “I went to the store to purchase tangelos, wine, soap bread eggs, nuts, paper toothpaste and soup.” Here, a lesson in grammar and punctuation could be mighty helpful for the speaker and would (subjunctive? Maybe, maybe not.) cause much less confusion for the reader. Who wants to use paper toothpaste?

The trend among these incorrect examples is that there is a lack of clarification of meaning in all of them. These grammar errors have single-handedly destroyed all intended coherence and purpose in the sentences and have failed to effectively communicate. And THIS is why we need grammar. To let others know exactly what we mean without question. (I know the previous string of words bookended by the periods is, in grammar, known as a “phrase,” which is generally considered “bad grammar,” but I (proper noun) took artistic liberty and used a phrase for emphasis.) Grammar is important in our world. Our understanding of the general and common rules of grammar is vital if we ever intend to lead professional lives, make good impressions or sound intelligent. Grammar rules matter. (indicative mood)

To an extent. (another phrase)

We can successfully get by in life with effective communication capabilities a-blazin’ even if we don’t know the textbook difference between the definition of a gerund and a participal or whether “billiards” is singular or plural or that the clause “he has been walking” is an example of “the progressive form,” probably so knighted by someone involved in an organized language association. Do the categories really matter? Are we just making this more complex than it has to be?

Maybe I am completely wrong. Maybe these extensive details are necessary for effective communication and if I didn’t know them I would be much worse off. I am sure that the linguists of our world strongly disagree with me. In certain contexts, like in comparing different languages or trying to understand how a certain culture uses slang, the grammar details are important. But, to someone who is not in those fields of study and who simply wants to sound articulate and educated, I can’t help but wonder if these endless rules are helpful or are if I am missing something bigger in the world of grammar because I am so focused on the details. In short, in the deep abyss of grammar rules, how low should we really go?


(Disclaimer: I have secretly and intentionally added some standard grammar errors in this blog post to show part of my point. Did you notice any of these errors and, if yes, did they change the meaning of what I was trying to say? Does this mean that our rules are pointless or were these errors distracting because we are so conditioned to do things a certain way? Hint: Most of them are comma usage inconsistencies.

I have also, as you probably noticed, named different parts of speech and sentence structure throughout the post to show just how many titles and rules we really have. A little intense, huh?)