Don't Stick With the Status Quo

One should never stick to the status quo.  High School Musical taught us this in their first film because they showed that everyone has similarities with the people they would have never expected.  They would have never realized this had they not broken the status quo.  They taught us that things change, even if we do not support the change that is occurring.  It's time prescriptivists realized and accepted this idea.  Although they don't focus directly on the changes going on in life, they need to accept that things are constantly changing, even in grammar.  

Bryan A. Garner is a prescriptivist and Robert Lane Greene is a descriptivist.  They are in a heated debate about one literary rule: " "Which" must introduce a "nonrestrictive" relative clause (a mere extra bit of information). Only "that" can introduce a "restrictive" clause (a crucial bit of definition)." (6th paragraph).  Garner believes writers should still follow that rule, while Greene believes that people should ignore it since it doesn't always apply to what the writer is writing.  I, for one, completely agree with Greene.  

Greene tells Garner that the world of language is constantly changing.  We basically write in the form in which we speak.  This includes the "real-world mess of dialects and slang" (3rd paragraph). Therefore, it's a rule that isn't a "part of standard English".  He even uses various examples to support the idea that changes in life affect the changes in grammar.  When I say changes in life, I am referring to the changes in eras, slang, ideas, etc.  it all ends up having a direct affect on grammar, since new ideas are born.  One example he uses is the Bible.  He states that Garner's interpretation of the Our Father is incorrect.  He says that the Our Father should actually be, "Our Father (which art in heaven), hallowed be thy name." Greene disagrees because Matthew was "obsessed with the opposition between heaven and earth" (26th paragraph).  He also directly mentions the form in which African Americans write, and the fact that many people do not have the best education.  

In the end, he comes up with a "meta-rule" for the English la guage, in terms of writing.  His rule is: 

"When a proposed rule and actual usage conflict, the proposed rule is false, and actual usage should be our guide." 

In other words, when one rule is rarely used, it should not be a rule.  However, when a rule is constantly seen, it should be considered an actual rule in grammar.  This defends the idea that things change.   If writers, like prescriptivists, didn't acknowledge this, we would continue to use rules that were invented 50 years ago.

I think his new rule should be considered in all languages, in terms of their grammar.  Things around us are constantly changing! Our slang has gone from "that's so rad" to "that's sick".  Imagine if we were still using rules that were invented 50 years ago! Where would the English language be? Would we still be using phrases like "art thou" ? Writing and speech are directly connected with each other.  If there were more prescriptivists in the world, instead of descriptivists, our language would be very different.  Things would never change.  In conclusion, change is GOOD!