By Gordon Rugg
Within linguistics, the scientific study of language, there is a long-established and useful distinction between two approaches to grammar, namely prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. This article describes a third approach, namely user-centred grammar. Before describing this third approach, I’ll briefly summarise the other two.
Background
Prescriptive grammar typically takes the view that there is a “correct” form of grammar for a dialect or language that should be followed by everyone, including people for whom that dialect or language is their native tongue. An example from Standard English is the claim that one should say “It is I” as opposed to “It is me”. Similarly, prescriptive grammar often makes normative claims about correctness based on claims that a particular phrasing is in some sense logically correct. An example in English is how to treat two negatives (e.g. “I haven’t got nothing”). Prescriptive grammar typically claims that these should cancel each other out because that is “logical” by analogy with formal logic.
Descriptive grammar describes the grammar used by native speakers of a dialect or language, without any normative claims. For the first example above, the descriptive approach would say that some native speakers of Standard English say “It is I” but that most native speakers of English say “It is me”. For the second example above, descriptive grammar typically states that in various dialects of English, the two negatives are treated as reinforcing each other.
Historically, prescriptive grammar has tended to invoke semi-arbitrary norms based on the grammar of other languages that have high status. In the case of Standard English, for example, prescriptive grammar frequently invoked norms from Latin (“we should use this phrasing in English because that’s what Latin would do”).
The use of descriptive grammar in linguistics has numerous advantages in terms of internal consistency, of avoiding imposition of arbitrary and semi-arbitrary norms on native speakers of a language, and of avoiding the social stigmatisation of dialects and languages other than the most prestigious ones. However, there are situations where phrasings can make a significant difference in how well a person can communicate their intended message to others. This causes problems for anyone attempting to teach ways of avoiding unintended consequences from particular phrasings, because this can look like an attempt to impose subjective norms.
The approach described in this article, namely user-centred grammar, provides a possible way of resolving this apparent paradox.
User-centred approaches
User-centred approaches are widely used in design, particularly design of software systems. The core concepts involve identifying and incorporating design features that will make the system easier to use, while identifying and eliminating design features that will make the system more difficult to use. A key point is that the concepts of “easy to use” and “difficult to use” are defined and measured using objective features, such as the number of actions that a user needs to perform in order to complete a specific task. For instance, software systems with very large numbers of users, such as those selling products online, are designed to minimise the number of mouse clicks involved in making a purchase, because each extra click costs time and money, and also significantly increases the likelihood that a user will give up and leave the site.
User-centred grammar
User-centred grammar aims to make text easier for the user to parse, by reducing the number of cognitive steps required to interpret a statement into the meaning intended by the person who produced that sentence.
For example, the phrase “old men and women” can be parsed either as “old men and old women” or as “old men, and women of any age”. This means that the reader cannot be sure what the intended meaning is.
This type of ambiguity is sometimes resolved by the wording later in a sentence. An example is: “Old men and women suffer problems that do not affect young people”. This context makes it clear that the intended meaning is old men and old women. However, this phrasing means that the reader/listener has to hold both possible meanings in memory until they reach the disambiguating phrase, causing unnecessary extra mental load.
Using a different phrasing, such as: “Old men and old women suffer problems that do not affect young people” means that the reader/listener can parse the sentence in the intended sense on the first pass, with less mental load.
Concepts from user-centred design provide a more rigorous foundation than traditional prescriptive grammar or descriptive grammar, for providing guidance on writing in a way that is more easily and accurately parsed, in a way that is based on relatively objective measures.
Well-recognised causes of parsing problems include:
uncertainty about which nouns in a list are being described by a previous adjective (as in the “old men and women” example)
uncertainty about the relationship between two words or phrases at the end of a list (the Oxford comma problem)
anaphoric reference (e.g. “He handed him his pen” where “his” could refer back either to the first or the second person mentioned)
cataphoric reference (e.g. “After leaving her house, she waved goodbye to her friend” where the first “her” could refer forward either to “she” or “her friend”).
A related issue both for prescriptive and descriptive language is language change. Scientific writing is explicitly intended to be understandable with the minimum of effort by future researchers. This is one reason that scientific writing deliberately doesn’t use fashionable or regional slang in an attempt to be more interesting or accessible. An example is slang use of “bomb” in popular English, where “it’s the bomb” means that the thing is excellent, but “it’s a bomb” means that the thing is a failure. These slang meanings will probably be forgotten within a few years, whereas “excellent” and “failure” will probably still have much the same meaning in a century. Again, a user-centred approach provides a non-judgmental basis for language choice.
Other issues
There are various other issues in guidance about phrasing and language choice which can also be usefully viewed from a user-centred perspective.
Grey scales in user centred grammar
The examples above mainly involve crisp sets, where there are clearly distinct possible meanings. However, there are also ways of using user-centred grammar with fuzzy sets, where the issues involved are on a grey scale.
For instance, there are phrasings which signal to the reader that the writer has a sophisticated knowledge of a topic. In academic writing, examples include use of technical terms such as c.f. and references to advanced articles in specialist journals. Sophisticated knowledge forms a grey scale, rather than being an either/or binary choice; there are degrees of sophistication, and degrees to which the reader might understand the intended signals from such phrasings.
Similarly, the writer may use a phrasing that anticipates and resolves a possible question before the reader asks it; for instance, a phrasing that makes it clear that the writer didn’t make a slip of the pen when making an unlikely-looking assertion.
Deliberate vagueness
Popular articles about writing usually condemn vagueness. However, in some situations deliberate vagueness has advantages. In constructive politics and constructive negotiation, for instance, vague wording can give the parties room for manoeuvre, whereas precise wording early on could impose hard constraints before the options had been fully explored.
Allegedly, many of the political and legal agreements that patched together a peace after the English Civil War were deliberately vague about various issues because that vagueness allowed the relevant parties to move forward, without having to re-start the war to settle those issues. Several centuries later, that deliberate vagueness is still helping to keep the peace.
Legal implications
Particular phrasings may have significant legal implications; for instance, the difference between i.e. and e.g.
i.e. comes from Latin id est, meaning that is. e.g. is from Latin exampli gratia, meaning for the sake of example. If you use i.e. you are specifying which item or items you mean; if you use e.g. you are giving some examples. This can be a very significant distinction.
Expressive and instrumental language
Expressive behaviour is intended to show what sort of person one is; instrumental behaviour is intended to achieve a practical aim. An example of expressive behaviour is wearing a hat with the slogan of the political party that the wearer supports, to show political allegiance. An example of instrumental behaviour is wearing a safety helmet, to prevent injury. Some behaviour is both instrumental and expressive at the same time, such as a politician putting on a safety helmet during a factory visit to show solidarity with construction workers (expressive) while protecting their head (instrumental).
Expressive and instrumental behaviour can be shown via language. Much of the language in populist rhetoric involves use of words and phrases that signal group allegiance, where the demonstration of allegiance is treated as more important than the actual logical meaning of what is being said. Conversely, most of the language in legal documents and technical manuals is as instrumental as possible.
Some language is deliberately both instrumental and expressive. For example, a political speech writer may make a very deliberate, instrumental choice about whether to describe a group as freedom fighters, rebels, revolutionaries, or insurgents in a speech. Each of these implications has different implications politically and also legally (for instance, in terms of whether they can legally receive a particular type of aid).
We blogged HERE about the implications of expressive and instrumental behaviour and language for possible problems in interactions between patients and medical professionals.
Conclusion
Although the distinction between prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar is useful in some contexts, it tends to be unhelpful in other contexts. This article is intended to show how a person can make choices between phrasings in a way that is neither arbitrarily normative, nor unhelpfully non-directive, and that ties in with practical issues in the world.
Notes and links
You’re welcome to use Hyde & Rugg copyleft images for any non-commercial purpose, including lectures, provided that you state that they’re copyleft Hyde & Rugg.
There’s more about the theory behind this article in my book Blind Spot, by Gordon Rugg with Joseph D’Agnese.
You might also find our website useful. We have recently updated the website, with a lot of new features, including a much expanded resource section.
hyde and rugg 