As I mentioned in my last article on the difference between objective and subjective, I’d like to share some thoughts on when language rules should be strictly followed and when they may be flexible. This is essentially the difference between objective (provably true) rules and subjective (personally preferred) techniques.
In short, there are some areas of English that should be observed closely, to ensure the best understanding, but others may be varied, to fit different purposes or show specific personality.
Questions of Style
A good part of this issue is covered by the matter of style in English; that is all those areas of writing that may be flexibly decided. I’ve already got an article about this taken from my Advanced Writing Skills book, so please read that here.
In summary, style is the term we use for decisions made on variations in language. This can include the way we use punctuation, spelling, or the presentation of writing. Style covers regional variations, capitalisation, the way we write times, and much more. By establishing style rules, we decide a consistent pattern of English for specific written documents. This isn’t to say these decisions are objectively correct overall, but they should be consistent within that piece of writing.
For example, in a piece of fiction if we decide to show dialogue with double quotation marks, it would then be incorrect, within that document, to use single quotation marks. Why is this important? Because if we establish a consistent pattern, deviations from it suggest a different function.
However, forming decisions over style are clearer in writing, where it may be done as a formal process by writers and editors. In everyday English, such decisions aren’t necessarily made consciously, so we find even more variety. Style also tends to account for things that won’t necessarily affect understanding: it’s more about the pattern and display of English.
It may sometimes consider grammatical quirks, but not to the degree that we encounter them in spoken English.
Language Rules or Language Patterns?
In everyday English, our variations of language are established through learning in schools, through dictionaries, via teachers and (perhaps most of all!) through communication with peers. Attempts are made to cement the rules of language, but there will always be exceptions in practice, because everyone adapts the way they communicate.
This is because, quite simply, different people express themselves differently – and that’s a good thing. To go a bit deeper, though, it’s also a case of different people using the same tools for different jobs, and interpreting their uses differently.
Yet there is a balance to be struck here between two conflicting ideas: on the one hand, language needs to be as homogenous as possible for the best possibility of wider understanding. That is to say, if we all use the same rules consistently, the same spellings and definitions and grammar patterns, then everyone will understand each other more effectively. On the other hand, however, language must be open to interpretation to adapt to changing times, or the uses of different cultures, and sometimes rigid rules can actually restrict effective communication.
There are rules that I believe are important to stick to, but even these I might alter if it fit the style for a specific piece of writing. Part of the reason for this is that almost everything, when it comes to effective communication, depends on context. Within given contexts, there are areas where we can say it is objectively important to maintain certain rules, but in different situations this might not be true.
As such, I have one simple rule myself to decide whether or not any given rule is objectively justifiable: is an error here likely to lead to misunderstanding/miscommunication?
If breaking a ‘rule’ overall will not cause misunderstanding, and creates a variation in English that may be unconventional but will likely be understood, I’d suggest the ‘rule’ presents a helpful pattern (i.e. a common/popular way of doing it) rather than a strict rule.
On the other hand, we have to consider exactly what might cause misunderstanding/miscommunication in any given situation. Comma usage overall is a good example of this in practice: we have certain ‘rules’ about where commas should appear, and some of these will directly affect the understanding of a sentence, for example a comma before ‘who’ can establish if a clause is defining or non-defining. At other times, commas might just help break up a long sentence in positions where they’re not always required. It’s perfectly possible, though, that in some circumstances not including a comma with a non-defining clause will make no difference in how it’s understood, or a seemingly flexible comma might be absolutely necessary to break up a long sentence that could otherwise be misunderstood.
You might guess that this a topic that could be expanded to discuss pretty much most of English and its details, so I think I’ll have to revisit it again and expand on some examples (honestly, I could probably write a book on this). For now, though, I hope these thoughts go a little way towards encouraging a little extra consideration of the nature of language rules…
