I’ve talked at length about how classist, ableist, and racist correcting grammar is. I’ve discussed the effects of weaponized grammar as well. But prescriptivism is more than just correcting spelling and grammar and I’m here to shine a light on what it is and what it looks like.  

Prescriptivism is when you try to enforce arbitrary rules when it comes to language. And believe me, the rules of English, at least, are more of a suggestion rather than hard and fast rules. If the rules of English were set in stone, we wouldn’t have modern English and all its modern variances and nuances. We’d still be speaking old English. 

Language evolves. The English we speak today is different than the English spoken even 100 years ago. And slang makes its way into the dictionary all the time. Language is constantly evolving, unless it’s dead, and for good reason. Things get dropped as they fall out of favor. Maybe people realized there was a better way to say it. Maybe the original verbiage became co-opted by people with less than altruistic motives and it was changed to protect marginalized groups. Maybe a marginalized group is reclaiming something. Or any of the other countless reasons word choice changes over time, which there are too many to fully list.  

I think a good example of prescriptivism is how many people think that “irregardless” isn’t a word when it is. Not only is it listed in the dictionary, but it’s also not slang. It’s a nonstandard adverb. While regardless might be a more appropriate choice when it comes to prescriptivism it doesn’t matter if someone uses it or not. Even if it was considered slang, it’s still a word, and people are free to use whatever words they feel are best for the situation. Holding people to an arbitrary standard, on the other hand, is exhausting. No one likes it when someone is pedantic. It’s frustrating when someone is more focused on the words you used versus what you’re saying, after all. It also devalues the argument when someone decides to impose rules that are less strict and more guidelines.  

It also applies to words like single-use they. Singular they predates singular you and is still a commonly used word today. It’s not people trying to resurrect old language rules, it’s something people use every day still. The only reason it’s such a hot topic of debate is because nonbinary trans people are using it instead of he or she. It’s an argument that from the beginning is flawed because it’s rooted in transphobia. But people think they’re being clever by reworking it as a prescriptivist argument when prescriptivism is also a flawed argument. They’re claiming that “grammar has rules” when grammar doesn’t have any hard rules to begin with. I think that English teachers who push this idea are part of the problem because so many English teachers seem to think that there is “one true” English. You see this a lot in the US with schools pushing American Standard English as the “one true” English when it’s much more varied than that. Adding transphobia on top of racism, classism, and xenophobia isn’t a stretch by any measure.  

Prescriptivism can also be extended to various phrases that people will sometimes take issue with. Sometimes phrases change over the years, which leads to portions of them getting dropped. The original “the early bird gets the worm,” used to be followed by “but the second mouse gets the cheese,” as one example. But it’s also when people are pedantic over phrases such as,” thank God.” Just because someone uses “thank God” doesn’t mean they are literally thanking God, it’s just a phrase uttered out of relief. But so many people get bent out of shape over it, whether it’s meant in a pious way or not, and that’s exhausting too. No one really cares if it’s meant to be taken literally, and correcting someone who uses it, especially when it’s not meant to be pious to begin with, is also exhausting.  

It can also extend to things phrased in a manner that should be obvious. Take the term “grass-fed” and the meme going around about someone wanting “grass-fed” chicken even though chickens don’t eat a diet composed of only grass. Yes, chickens eat greens, but they need more than that to survive. And the term “grass-fed” when it applies to meat means that the animal was fed exclusively grass which chickens can’t live off of. They are omnivores after all, and their diet reflects that. Still, I see so many people in comment sections arguing over whether chickens eat grass when that’s not the point of the label or the meme. I’m sure at least some of it is chalked up to ignorance, but plenty of chicken owners seem to enjoy arguing that their chickens eat grass when that’s not what the meme is about.  

Prescriptivism is a war that is mostly waged against marginalized voices to silence them. This is, obviously, not always the case. Look at the Southern or Midwestern dialects, dialects that are just as valid as American Standard but that people also try to correct. Or the way people wield it against individuals who speak English as a second or later language. Just because you feel there is “one true way” to use English doesn’t make you right, and it’s not your place to apply rules that, in the end, are completely arbitrary. You are free to use whatever language you wish, just don’t impose it on others. Life is too short to police others’ language.