Skip to: Navigation | Content | Sidebar | Footer

Inside Online Learning

An Education Writer for OC.org, Melissa's background includes work in higher education...
more

Meet Eric Stoller, our blogger who's an expert in higher education, student affairs and e-learning...
more

The Latest
Crowdsourcing the Textbook: Terminology, Technology, and TechniqueWe've explored the benefits and challenges of eTextbooks here at Inside Online Learning, but haven't given much attention to how these books are prepared. Crowdsourcing is emerging as a strategy in which Instructors and …

The 20 Most Controversial Rules in the Grammar World

Like anything else involving stringent rules and regulations, grammar harbors a hefty share of obsessive fanboys and fangirls who enjoy debating its ins, outs, and other various quirks. So of course controversies break out in academia, the media, and even intimate conversations between friends. Here are a few of the ones that churn stomachs and angry up the blood, in no particular order.

  1. The Oxford Comma

    Debates regarding whether the Oxford comma should keep on being used are comparable to those about the death penalty and/or abortion. Seriously. Most grammarians have an opinion on the subject, and their opinion is always right and never wrong ever and also they will use an insistent voice when relaying it.

  2. The pronunciation of "controversial"

    Go figure. Americans stand divided over whether to pronounce it "con-truh-VUR-see-yul" or "con-truh-VUR-shal." You don't even have to hop a plane across the pond to take part in the battle. Funny enough, Merriam-Webster's and The American Heritage Dictionary acknowledge both pronunciations. So now that a definitive answer exists, it's time to get back to arguing about whether to call it soda, pop, or coke.

  3. Double negatives

    Although grammatically correct, debates regarding the permissibility of double negatives keep flaring up from time to time. Talks apparently originated when linguists pondered acceptance of the often controversial African-American Vernacular English, within which the grammar tweak is quite common. Unsurprisingly, these debates inherently come saddled with some rather unfortunate overtones.

  4. "Irregardless"

    "Irregardless" appears in at least three different official dictionaries, though all of them admit it's not exactly formal. More traditional grammar aficionados don't think the word deserves to move beyond its slang origins, while others think it's about time the rule-makers acknowledge the evolution.

  5. Ending sentences with prepositions

    Here's one the grammarians out there just can't get enough of. Ending sentences with prepositions isn't actually incorrect, but teacher's gonna teach. The myth circulates so widely, English speakers argue the rule's veracity constantly despite the clear-cut answer.

  6. "Hanged" vs. "Hung"

    Perhaps not as controversial as some of the other grammar rules presented here, people still mix up — and sometimes argue — over what situations require "hung" and which ones require "hanged." The latter works when describing executions and suicide, while the former works pretty much anywhere else.

  7. Like as a conjunction

    Winston Cigarettes unintentionally ignited a pretty nasty grammatical furor back in 1954 with its use of like as a conjunction. Slogan "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" was once considered so egregious, many broadcasters (such as Walter Cronkite) refused to even read it on air. Further outrage ensued when dictionaries acknowledged that the company was not committing any grammatical error, even touting it as an example of proper conjunction usage. Suffice it to say, this isn't exactly much of a controversy these days.

  8. "Good" vs. "Well"

    Feel like setting off an unabashed grammar geek? Mix up "good" and "well" when talking health and happiness. Although not a major controversy splitting the linguistic community, confusing the two will undoubtedly set off a minor mental explosion within individuals.

  9. Text/Internet speak

    Traditional grammarians consider Internet and text speak a portent of irreversible vernacular doom. Whether abbreviations, acronyms, the remaining shreds of 1337 5P34|<, or overusing punctuation and emoticons, its seepage into assignments and everyday conversations boils many a language buff's blood. That's evidenced by the fact that slow news days inevitably cover their bubbling rage.

  10. Starting sentences with "however"

    Strunk & White loyalists pooh-pooh the thought of beginning a sentence with "however" when one really means "nevertheless." Everyone else just thinks them a bit outdated.

  11. Starting sentences with "but" or "and"

    Like their "however" counterpart, "but" and "and" are actually perfectly acceptable ways to start a new sentence. Not every sentence, of course, but some flow even better when launched with a conjunction. Once again, detractors detract simply because of tradition.

  12. Gender-neutral pronouns

    English only involves one gender-neutral pronoun: "it," and many in the genderqueer community find the word either insulting or inaccurate. These individuals oftentimes create their own unique alternatives, though none have obviously entered the mainstream vernacular yet. In order to accommodate their desires, however, a gender-neutral pronoun needs eventual inclusion, which will prove a massive boon to LGBT equality and acceptance.

  13. Split infinitives

    Yet another grammar rule students frequently find smashed into their heads that doesn't actually exist. Or, rather, its existence is rather dubious. Split infinitives jam an adverb between an unmarked verb and preposition — and they're perfectly acceptable. Just don't tell the teachers whose notes tell them otherwise, OK?

  14. Passive voice

    Hit up grammar forums across the Internet and witness the hordes defending passive voice. While technically grammatically sound, many writers think stigmatizing its usage compromises experimenting with the language.

  15. Punctuation inside quotation marks

    Depending on the English-speaking nation, punctuation marks either go inside quotation marks (America) or outside (pretty much everywhere else). Considering the fact that this debate wages on an international scale, no further explanation is really needed.

  16. Possessive apostrophes on words that end in 's'

    Not every controversial grammar rule out there can brag that it managed to inspire legislation. In 2007, the Arkansas house voted to officially denote possessives as "Arkansas's" as opposed to the more standard "Arkansas.'" Needless to say, this not-at-all-arbitrary act drew its fair share of hissing from grammar purists offended by their apparent affront.

  17. "E-mail" vs. "email"

    So yeah. After years of pressure, the AP Stylebook declared that "e-mail" should now be written as "email." And with that came the biggest controversy involving a hyphen since Mariner I. Because nothing in life is more serious than the correct abbreviation of "electronic mail."

  18. Universal grammar rules

    With a name like that, how could this theory whip up anything but arguments? Usually attributed to influential linguist Noam Chomsky, the idea of universal grammar rules involves the cognition behind language structures. Its core concept posits that something in every human brain dictates grammar rules, meaning some elements remain static across even vastly different speakers.

  19. The fact that there are different kinds of dashes

    Aside from the hyphen, most non-professionals (and probably even some professionals) don't know when to use each one. They kind of all look the same when one reads rather than copy edits — a phenomenon which, of course, detractors will constantly note.

  20. "Who" vs. "Whom"

    Even more than "good" and "well," misusing "who" and "whom" is guaranteed to set a grammarian's sphincter on fire. "Whom" comes into play as the object of a preposition or the objective case, while "who" is a subjective pronoun. But they don't have to know you know.

Updated 12/21: Thanks to our readers for helping us correct a couple of typos!

December 12th, 2011 written by Site Administrator

27 Comments

Christianne said on December 13, 2011 at 5:04 am

What really gets me is hyper-correction: If you have any questions, come talk to Sue or I.

catalian said on December 13, 2011 at 7:48 am

Great article, thanks for sending me the link. I’ll be putting it into an article on my site this week.

The great thing about the English Language is that there is no clearly right or wrong English language. This is, of course, quite frustrating for people who want to learn English well. The history of English shows us that the language has evolved over hundreds of years from a very rigid grammar similar to German to what it has become today. Now English is an international language where many English speakers never speak with native English speakers. The phrase Globish was coined a few years ago to reflect this present reality.

Nancy Rathke said on December 14, 2011 at 7:49 am

I’m sure this has been pointed out, but it was the first thing I saw:

“opinion is always right and never wrong ever and also they will use and insistent voice when relaying it.”

“And”? Really?

DB said on December 21, 2011 at 10:14 am

Re: #14. I think you mean hordes, not hoards. And I don’t think you need ‘numerous.’ That’s part of the definition of hordes.
An obsessive fangirl

Lauren @ Pure Text said on December 21, 2011 at 10:17 am

I still stand by the em dash being its own punctuation. However, “whom” is certainly on its way out. I don’t think much will be lost when it goes either.

Anyway, great list. :)

Mark said on December 21, 2011 at 10:33 am

There’s a typo in the first paragraph. It should read “use an insistent voice,” not “and insistent.” Otherwise, great article. Thanks for sharing it!

sharon fisher said on December 21, 2011 at 10:57 am

There’s a typo. Hordes, not hoards.

Jane Ross said on December 21, 2011 at 12:23 pm

My two personal favourites aren’t on this list.

Firstly, the way that lazy typing in word processors often causes an opening apostrophe in print where instead a word-beginning “leave out the letter” type apostrophe is actually meant (which should of course look like a closing apostrophe). It’s annoying to see something like this in print. But that’s the minor one.

My biggest grammatical bugbear has seemingly seeped into all forms of media and it just annoys the heck out of me. It’s the use of “there’s” when instead “there’re” should be used. Unlike some of the ‘tradition rules’ that might be to-some jarring but are still technically sound, this one is actually pretty obviously very much grammatically incorrect! You’ll hear someone say “there’s only ten of them” and yet nobody would ever say “there is only ten of them”. No, because “there ARE only ten of them”. And yet, for some reason, the fact that “there’re” is apparently too unweildy makes the incorrect use of “there’s” alright? No, it doesn’t, I say! And it’s everywhere. Print, television, films… gah! I can only hope to hope that it doesn’t get any official acceptance.

If I had a third wish, it would be to have “ain’t” recognised as the proper short form of “am not”… and limited to ONLY that use. But then, that’s probably a pipe dream not many would agree with! If somebody can get this “there’s / there’re” nonsense sorted out, I’ll be a happy bunny.

Pat J said on December 21, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Related to “irregardless” (a “meaningless verbal bastard”, according to a friend’s English prof) is my uncle’s use of “unthaw”.

Jean Reynolds said on December 21, 2011 at 1:07 pm

I think you need “involves” in this sentence in #18 (the idea…involves): “Usually attributed to influential linguist Noam Chomsky, the idea of universal grammar rules involve the cognition behind language structures.”

Aaron Dyer said on December 21, 2011 at 1:28 pm

Would love to have seen the word “very” dealt with; however, it’s probably not considered very controversial.

Kim said on December 21, 2011 at 2:00 pm

I understand that in the US, punctuation goes inside quotation marks. But does the same apply to apostrophes (i.e., does punctuation go inside the possessive apostrophe)? In #16, shouldn’t the standard be “Arkansas’.” instead of “Arkansas.’”?

Austin said on December 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm

This might just be me, but isn’t “they” also a gender-neutral pronoun? It isn’t singular, I know, but some people use it for singular. Again, an LGBT-sensitive thing. They aren’t an “it;” they’re still a person.

Leonard said on December 21, 2011 at 3:22 pm

“The great thing about the English Language is that there is no clearly right or wrong English language.”

Wrong!

Pick up several books not self published, whether fiction or non-fiction, whether published in the US, Britain, or India, and you’ll see the same grammar, punctuation, and usage rules being carefully adhered to in all those books. At any given time the WRITTEN version of a language will normally have a standardized form everywhere because in written material all kinds of nuances and complexities are routinely conveyed. Many of them would be seriously messed up if written in sloppy English.

Claudia said on December 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm

Isn’t “one” a gender neutral pronoun?

steve said on December 21, 2011 at 5:42 pm

And let’s not forget “bad” vs “badly,” as in “I felt badly about what I said.” (ugh)

Karen Eliot said on December 21, 2011 at 5:57 pm

There are far more sentences that benefit from the Oxford comma than do not. Your example, involving a proper name, is more of an exception to the rule than a good definition of the rule itself.

Audrey said on December 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm

Would someone mind explaining to me the different uses for the dashes?

Diane said on December 21, 2011 at 7:00 pm

The example for the “Oxford comma” is wrong! That’s not a list of three-plus objects with a serial comma before the coordinating conjunction (“and”). “John and Lisa” is an appositive that defines who the “parents” are, so no comma should come after John.

I do, however, believe in the serial comma, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy.

Diane said on December 21, 2011 at 7:06 pm

I think your example for Who vs. Whom is also faulty. “Whom are you calling at this hour” would be correct because whom is the object of “are you calling” and begs the answer “him.” I am calling him–not I am calling he. A better example would be “Who painted this picture?” He painted it.

Elizabeth said on December 21, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Number 18: “involve” should be “involves”

chatbot said on December 22, 2011 at 11:09 am

‎”Unsurprisingly, these debates inherently come saddled with some rather unfortunate overtones.” needs a re-write.
“White people start throwing around the N-word like crazy.”

Julene said on December 22, 2011 at 4:19 pm

@Diane. The example is correct if John and Lisa are not the parents. You made that assumption without the comma. Nevertheless, a better example might contain a more obvious list as you elude to in your response. From a Twitter chat proving the need for an Oxford comma, I quote ” Dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.”

Naomi said on December 22, 2011 at 8:37 pm

Diane has it right, your example for the Oxford comma is wrong! Also, your example for Who vs. Whom is faulty. Leonard makes a good point as well, there most certainly is a clearly right or wrong English language. In my humble opinion, you lack respect for grammar rules (or guidelines if you prefer) and the effective power brought to communication through proper sentence construction.

Lam said on December 23, 2011 at 9:23 am

SORRY SOME ERRORS CREPT IN…I MEANT TO SAY:

Interesting examples and some controversial points for purists for sure. What happened to a discussion on transitive and intransitive verbs…lay and lie are always good for a discussion. Similar issue with regard to ‘the condemned man was hanged’ and ‘the condemned man was hung’ these sentences mean very different things. While we are at it, is it ‘with regard to’ or ‘with regards to’. Thanks for keeping the grammar discussions going.

Rogers George said on December 28, 2011 at 4:18 am

Rule 12 contains one of my favorite solecisms—a misplaced “only.” The “only,” if you’re going to use it at all, belongs in front of “one,” not “involves.”

Stuart said on December 28, 2011 at 9:47 am

#1: The Oxford comma is a matter of style and punctuation; it has nothing to do with grammar. The words “and also” are redundant, and because the “and” is a conjunction introducing an independent clause, you should have a comma after “ever”.

#2: Questions of pronunciation have nothing to do with grammar.

#3: Your first sentence contains a grammatical error (a dangling modifier) implying that “debates are grammatically correct”. When joining two words into a single adjective, such as “often-controversial”, a hyphen is required (but that’s a spelling mistake, not a grammatical one).

#4: “Irregardless” is a non-word used by those who have confused “regardless” with “irrespective”; it’s an error of diction, not grammar.

#6: Another error of diction, not grammar; again “explained” with a dangling modifier, this time implying that “people are not as controversial as other grammar rules”.

#9: The use of the abbreviations and symbols common to SMS-messaging is a question of style and suitability, not grammar.

#12: English has dozens of gender-neutral pronouns– it, they, them, theirs, anyone, everyone, nobody, someone, many, few, we, us, one (two, three, four, five, etc.). That simple fact is not a “grammar rule”, controversial or otherwise.

#14: The use of passive voice is a question of style, not grammar. Your explanation contains yet another dangling modifier, which implies that “many writers are technically grammatically sound”.

#15: Placement of punctuation marks is a matter of punctuation and typography, not grammar.

#16: The use of apostrophes is a matter of spelling, not grammar.

#17: E-mail vs. email: spelling, not grammar.

#19: The use of various dashes is a question of punctuation and typography, not grammar.

#20: Yet another dangling modifier.

Eleven items on your list of “grammar rules” have nothing to do with grammar; four out of 20 explanations contain grammatical errors themselves, and you are unable to identify 99% of the language’s gender-neutral pronouns. Sorry, but you get an ‘F’ on this assignment; please stop trying to teach language skills until you acquire some.

Add your Comment

*




This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink.