The Grumpy Grammarian

 Return to Index

Language As a Habit

I believe that much of the faulty grammar and usage that we hear and see may be attributed as much to habit as to ignorance.  Although we are perhaps sometimes ignorant of correct grammar and usage, much of our abuse of the language is the result of being habituated to improper usage – and, for the most part, we don't care if we are.

To begin with an obvious comparison, language and habits are learned by imitation and repetition.  We acquire both initially by imitating what others do, and we reinforce each by repeating what we have done before.  We speak a given language in a certain way because that is what we hear; what we have imitated becomes our "natural" way of speaking by repetition.  We acquire habits in much the same way.

Clearly, the society in which we grow up determines our language. Moreover, the segment of society (the region, the ethnic group, and so on) determines how we use the language.  If we are raised among people who speak a certain dialect – possibly one that the larger society considers "unacceptable" or "grammarically incorrect" – we will speak that dialect.  Even when we become aware that most people who speak the same language consider our usage and grammar to be incorrect, we will have a very hard time changing how we speak.  In fact, we may convince ourselves that we are not out of step – they are.  (I shall say more about rationalization later.)

This view of language closely parallels our development of habits.  Consider smoking.  Not long ago, before the health hazards of smoking were widely understood, smoking was accepted behavior in our society.  It was even regarded as sophisticated.  We imitated each other, considering the practice to be one of the "normal" pleasures of life, and millions of us – by repetitious use of nicotine – became addicted.  Only recently, as the dangers have become obvious, has smoking become socially unacceptable.  Still, many who grew up when it was considered to be "normal" adult behavior continue to smoke and (despite all the negative evidence) have difficulty understanding how nonsmokers manage to cope.  We may even rationalize that we are not out of step with "normal" behavior.  (Full disclosure:  I am a smoker.)

Of course, the analogy is imperfect.  Whereas the facts show that smoking is hazardous to one's health, nobody can prove that indulging in faulty grammar and usage has serious consequences – unless one is attending a convention of grammarians who may stone to death anyone who commits an egregious grammatical blunder.  (Okay, maybe they won't stone the offender, but they will certainly hurl verbal brickbats.)

However, considering faulty grammar and usage to be primarily a bad habit can be instructive.  As with a bad habit, considerable effort is required to overcome sloppy grammar and usage.  It is not merely a matter of knowing what is right or wrong; it is a matter of practicing what is right.  The more we indulge in the "habit" of using language improperly, the more difficulty we shall have in using it correctly when the occasion requires us to do so.  Thus, the person who repeatedly neglects the conventions of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and so on in e-mail and other informal writing will have a hard time using language appropriately when required to do so in a business memo or a school assignment.  The same applies to speech.  Individuals who are habituated to using like incessantly will have difficulty avoiding it in a job interview:  "Like, I'm sure I'm like qualified because I'm like experienced. Like I'm good with computers, and I'm like comfortable with technology."

Furthermore, because using correct English does require conscious effort, we must be convinced that sloppy speech or writing has serious negative consequences.  Few people quit smoking or go on a diet until they are convinced that smoking or overeating is seriously harming them.  However, the consequences of bad language habits are far less dramatic and more subtle than the consequences of habits that are clearly hazardous to our health.  Nobody ever died as the result of a faulty pronoun.  The consequences are more in how others perceive us than in any harm we do to ourselves.  I don't think anyone wants to appear to be stupid, but serious errors in speech or writing can and do make us appear that way, even among people who are themselves "linguistically challenged" and even if we are brilliant in many other ways.  Who hasn't heard a speech or read a letter that is rife with egregious blunders and thought, "Good grief – what an utter idiot"?

Because the effect of sloppy language habits is so subtle, we rationalize that our "comfortable" manner of speaking or writing (i.e., the one to which we are habituated) is not worth changing.   Besides convincing ourselves that correctness doesn't matter, we eagerly grasp the excuse that "everyone does it."  This is an immature reaction, akin to a child's defense of bad behavior on the grounds that "all my friends do it."  It has no validity, either.  Although it may be true that almost everyone in our circle of friends and acquaintances is a linguistic slob (that may be one reason why we hang out with them), in society at large – especially where it really matters – people honor and respect correct, effective, and articulate use of language.  It is considered a mark of the educated and intelligent man or woman.

On the other hand, one could argue that such a view is not a rationalization but a fact.  Indulgence in the habit of ignoring the conventions of grammar and usage is becoming more common and is no longer limited to the "uneducated."  Among the reasons for this is our increasing informality; casual and comfortable (which often translates into sloppy) is the linguistic equivalent of jeans and a T-shirt.  Another is that the natural rebellion of youth against established authority (which is what the rules of grammar, like any set of rules, represent) has filtered up into the adult population.  Instead of setting an example by maintaining standards, grown-ups "trade down" and try to adopt the language of kids (see our essay on "Children in Charge").  Yet another is the failure of our schools to teach language skills, the subject of many pages on this site.

[In a poll taken by this site, 31% of respondents say that grammar is faulty because people don't care or think it's unimportant.  This reason is given as the primary cause of faulty grammar more often than any other, with "grammar isn't taught, or isn't taught enough, in school" coming in second at 24%.]

A principal cause of faulty grammar and usage, though, is that it's just a bad habit – and bad habits, once developed, are difficult to break.  When the bad habit is adopted by a majority of the population, as (in my opinion) disregard for and indifference to correct usage and grammar have become, it becomes the norm.  That does not make it right or beneficial.  Even in a democratic society, what a majority of the people do is not necessarily good for the society – and hence it is not good for the individuals in that society.

To draw an analogy, we are currently seeing the consequences to society and to millions of individuals because we have been cultivating the bad habit of living beyond our means.  Though the causes of the economic meltdown that is inflicting so much grief are numerous, nobody can deny that the basic cause is that we are paying the consequences of having adopted this habit at every level of society, from the self-indulgence of individuals to the extravagance and irresponsibility of institutions and the government.  One reason that we are having such difficulty climbing out of this hole is that it took us too long to recognize that we were digging it in the first place.

Is the deterioration of language as serious as a global economic collapse?  No, it is probably not.  However, the dynamics are similar.  Caught in a downward spiral of extravagance, we rationalized that we would never have to pay the piper.  It was more "comfortable" to spend than to save.  Nobody except a few pessimists predicted that our bad habit would have any consequences, let alone consequences as serious as we are now experiencing.  Indeed, the very institutions that were entrusted with safegarding markets and the economy were blind-sided.

Similarly, the institutions that are entrusted with preserving literacy and respect for language are allowing the situation to deteriorate, and individuals are naturally following suit.  We are in the midst of a "linguistic meltdown" as we indulge in the comfortable habit of sloppy grammar and usage.  Just as we misused and wasted our wealth at a time when we were the most affluent nation in the world, we are abusing language at a time when we have developed the most sophisticated communications systems in the history of mankind.  Just as we spent our way into a crisis of seemingly insurmountable debt, we are gradually (or perhaps rapidly) moving in the direction of widespread illiteracy or semiliteracy.  Although any rational individual could have foreseen the consequences of our financial irresponsibility, we rationalized our way into an economic meltdown.  Although any rational person should be able to see that we are eroding the integrity of our language, hardly anyone cares.  Our children will be paying dearly for our economic responsibility.  They will also pay dearly for our neglect of language.

There's a connection between between the economic health of a society and the degree to which its population is educated.  Furthermore, education and linguistic skill are irrevocably linked, especially in an age of communication.  Even "nonlinguistic" knowledge (e.g., math and science) requires the ability to read, write, and communicate clearly.   Indeed, a widespread belief exists that, as long as communication is clear, it doesn't need to be technically or grammatically correct.  "People know what I mean, so nothing else matters" is a popular rationalization for continuing the habit of using sloppy English.  That is simply not true.  The conventions of grammar, syntax, and usage are what makes language work; without them, we would descend into what I call "linguistic anarchy."  Abandoning a significant number of these conventions undermines the effectiveness of communication.  When large numbers of people in a society become habituated to ignoring the conventions of language,  we move closer to the point at which nobody understands anybody else very well.  We may not become altogether intellectually bankrupt, but we are certainly intellectually impoverished.