The Classism of Linguistic Prescriptivism
Linguistic prescriptivism refers to the belief that there are "correct" and "incorrect" ways to use language, and that we should strive to use language in the "correct" way according to certain formal rules of grammar, spelling, and usage. This contrasts with linguistic descriptivism, which simply aims to describe how language is actually used by people in the real world, without making value judgements.
(And by “classism”, I’m referring to the analogy of racism as applied to social class, instead of to race).
The way these "correct" grammar rules are established is an interesting process. Linguistic scholars will often analyze the patterns of usage across a language community and then codify those patterns into a set of rules. But the key point is that these rules aren't descending from on high as immutable laws of nature - they're human constructs that emerge from the way people actually use language.
So when we look at two different language communities that have developed distinct grammatical patterns, it becomes clear that there is no objective basis to declare one set of rules as "proper" and the other as "incorrect". They are simply different ways of structuring the language, each with their own internal logic and consistency.
Yet in practice, we often see certain people (the “linguistic classists” to whom I am referring) take the grammar rules of a socially dominant group, often the educated elite, and enshrine those as the "correct" way to speak and write. Anything that deviates from those rules is then dismissed as "improper" or "uneducated."
"Other People's English", a book by Vershawn Ashanti Young et al, provide a vivid example that illustrates this dynamic:
“First day I walk in the door, there she bed, red-hot and hollering with the colic, fighting that bottle like it’s a rotten turnipt.” - Kathyrn Stockett, The Help
Like numerous sentences in Kathryn Stockett’s The Help, the sentence above contains an example of what linguists call invariant be, a form of the verb “to be” that does not have “variant” forms such as is, are, or am. Although the use of invariant be is one of the features that distinguishes African American English from other dialects of American English, it is obvious that the sentence above was not produced by a speaker of African American English. Although it would certainly be reasonable to say that Stockett’s use of African American English is “wrong,” the book has been extremely successful, spending months on the best-seller lists and being made into a major motion picture. Despite the fact that her African American English is inaccurate or incorrect, Stockett has definitely been rewarded for the quality of her writing. In other contexts, however, the use of African American English in writing is rarely rewarded. A child who writes in African American English in school is likely to be told that their writing is inappropriate for academic contexts, even when the child gets the grammar of African American English right. Why is a college-educated White woman rewarded for using African American English incorrectly in her writing, while an African American child who writes in perfectly correct African American English is likely to be reprimanded, corrected, or ask to switch it out for another more appropriate version of English?
[…]
In African American English, the use of invariant be marks habitual or repeated actions (She be working all the time; She be in her office every day), while actions in the regular present are marked without any form of to be (She working today; She in her office now). Actions that occurred in the past are marked by a conjugated form of to be (She was working yesterday; She was in her office this morning). Following these rules of the grammar of African American English, a native speaker could say, First day I walk in the door, there she was, but it is highly unlikely that an actual speaker of African American English would ever say or write Stockett’s sentence. This is because the sentence above violates the grammatical rules that speakers of African American English know. The first part of the sentence First day I walk in the door makes it clear that this action only occurred one time, while the use of be in the second part of the sentences clearly indicates that the action was repeated a number of times (as in every time I walk in, there she be). There are numerous examples of such sentences in The Help: Today be Labor Day … He be dead … There be two white ladies talking, and so on. From such examples, it is clear that Stockett does not know the grammar of African American English. In other words, she be getting it wrong all over the place.
But my argument is a bit stronger than the claim “there are multiple correct grammars”. I’m saying that it’s typically not that big of a deal if someone says or writes something idiosyncratic that does not adhere to any widely used dialect of English (or whatever language they’re writing in).
The argument is often made that adhering to prescriptive grammar rules is important for clarity and effective communication. But the reality is that the vast majority of the time, meaning is crystal clear even when standard grammatical rules are violated. Descriptive linguists have shown time and again that people are remarkably adept at understanding each other's intended meaning, even in the presence of "errors".
To be clear, the classism of linguistic prescriptivism lies not in the simple act of learning and applying "proper" grammar in one's writing — that can certainly be a useful skill, particularly in professional contexts. The classism lies in the idea that certain ways of speaking or writing are inherently "wrong" or "inferior", particularly dialects and vernaculars associated with marginalized groups, like African-American Vernacular English. This elite policing of language is a way of maintaining social hierarchies and excluding the lower classes.
For example, when applying for jobs, it's pragmatic to write your resume and cover letter in what is considered "standard" or "proper" English, as this will help you get your foot in the door and avoid potential biases against "non-standard" language use. The reality is that in many professional settings, knowing how to adhere to prescribed grammatical rules is seen as a mark of education and competence, whether or not that assessment is fair or accurate. Similarly, when communicating with professors, potential employers, or other authority figures, using "proper" English can help you be taken more seriously and avoid being dismissed as uneducated or unintelligent.
Ultimately, while it may be pragmatic to learn and use so-called "standard" English in certain professional contexts, we should be wary of falling into the trap of linguistic snobbery. The real key is to be aware that the game of class signaling through language is being played, and to not get duped into being an unwitting pawn in it. The best approach is to understand the social realities of language use, but not let them unduly limit your linguistic self-expression.