"Our Father which art in heaven.”

Since around third grade, English teachers have taught us how to write. Ever since, we have been graded not only on what we write but on how we write it. Should this be done, though? Should someone score you on whether or not they like how you're saying something? This is a debate which has been going on for a while. It is dealt with in the New York Times article, "Which Language Rules to Flout. Or Flaunt?"In this written debate, Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner exhibit their ideas and the arguments behind them.

It is interesting how although both of these men have the same purpose (to convince the audience of the veracity of their points), the ways in which they try do achieve it are completely different from each other. They do both use logos: Garner does so when quoting various men who have said native speakers can't make grammatical mistakes, and so does Lane when he uses writers as examples or explains "Our Father which art in heaven."  However, the rest is completely different. Garner criticizes Lane a lot. I guess he's trying to win the argument by putting Lane down. This is evident when he says: "...in your [Lane's] book, “You Are What You Speak,” you [Lane] tendentiously call prescriptivists “language cranks,” “oddballs,” “declinists,” “self-appointed language guardians,” and “scolds” who habitually fly into “spittle-flecked fury.” By saying this, he is simply pointing out Lane's mistakes while not saying anything to actually support his own argument. Garner also uses a derogatory tone towards Lane. He explains why what Lane says is wrong and then goes on to explain why he's right and adds "as you'd [Lane] surely notice if you took a moment to analyze it." By saying it this way, he is implying that Lane didn't actually even try to decipher what is being said, thus in a way insulting him (In the end, it turns out Lane is right, which makes this insulting sentence funny as it turns against him).

Lane is completely different. He starts off by complimenting Garner's book, which his opponent never does. In addition, instead of trying to prove his points by putting-down his opponent, he uses the "how to the what." He is not only saying that sentences can begin with "so," "but," "and," etc, but he is starting his own sentences this way as well. He does so expertly when he tells Garner, "You say that for a century the best prescriptivists (see Vocabulary below) have dismissed nonrules like “don’t begin a sentence with a conjunction,” “don’t split an infinitive” or “don’t end a sentence in a preposition,” and the next sentence, to make his point even more powerful, he begins with a "but."

After reading both of their arguments, although I must say the way Lane arguments is mucho more convincing, I am not solely descriptivist (see Vocabulary below) nor only a prescriptivist: I think it depends. It would be a huge generalization if I said all errors are either wrong or right. I believe it depends on the register. If you're talking or writing in a familiar register, it's fine to include slang wherever you want, and if it's informal, it's ok to do it every here and there. However, if it's formal or ceremonial, I believe slang or words such as "ain't" are inadequate. 

However, unless a teacher specifies that s/he expects a paper to have a formal or ceremonial register, s/he shouldn't mark a student down because she doesn't approve of the word s/he uses. That's the great thing about writing: Everybody has their own way and style. So, who is the teacher to force you to get rid of your style? I'm not only referring to slang, but also to simple style techniques people have. A teacher shouldn't lower students' grades because the start a sentence with a conjunction, or because they replace "I hope" with "I hope." These are all examples of how something is being said, and, on most occasions  teachers shouldn't interfere with this. 

However, there's a difference between not liking how something is being said and not being able to understand what is being said. When one is unable to comprehend what the writer is trying to say, it is no longer a matter of how it is said, but of what is being said. Although most words should be allowed, students should not be given enough liberty to decide whether to use punctuation or not, when it is obviously needed. Lane at one point implies that apostrophe's aren't that important. But apostrophe's are essential to understanding the writer (differentiate you're and your) , and so are comma's, periods, colons, etc.

So there is no way for me to choose a side. Language is too broad for there to be only one way to look at it and to have no exceptions to rules. So although I have stated my views on all of this, there will obviously be exceptions to what I have said. 


Vocabulary (for a better understanding of the article):
Descriptivist: describing"language as it is used."

Prescriptivist: focusing "on how language should be used."

Dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

Egalitarians: relating to the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Maladroit:ineffective or bungling; clumsy.

Berating: scold or criticize (someone) angrily.