This is a follow-up on my last post about grammatical rules. There I argued that we should figure out the grammar of a language by observing how native speakers use that language. One of the replies to that post argued back that this approach seems to dispense with grammar all together. If grammar can be inferred from usage, then whatever anyone says is correct. In other words, anything goes and grammar becomes a free-for-all.
I can see how someone might draw that conclusion, and in fact this is probably the most common response I get to this idea. But adopting a usage-based approach doesn’t mean that a sentence is correct just because someone said it. We’re free to say any kind of garbage we want, like
the tea up before again Mary because bites
But just uttering words doesn’t make them grammatical. I think we all agree there’s something wrong with this sentence. The mere fact that we can come to this agreement suggests that grammar does exist. If there was no grammar, if language was truly a free-for-all, then that sentence ought to be totally unremarkable.
This is the important point: even though it’s true that people could say whatever they want, they don’t. There are sentences that people don’t, or wouldn’t, say. People are really good at keeping their auxiliaries in the right order, and no one would ever say *I been may have working. Relative clause markers consistently go at the beginning of the clause, and I never hear sentences like *that’s the house we bought which. No one violates island extraction constraints to ask questions like *What does Fred like the woman who wears?.
And it’s the absence of sentences such as *I been may have working that allows us to know there’s a grammar at work in the first place. If absolutely every arrangement of English words was possible, then the descriptive enterprise would be sunk, or at least we’d have very different goals. But that’s not how English, or any language, works. There are rules for which strings of words are allowed (among other things).
Let me put forth the following definition for a rule: a rule is a claim about a language that could be verified through observation of native speakers. It’s a hypothesis about grammar, if you like. I want it to be crystal clear that my definition of rule is not the same a rule that you “have to follow”. There’s no obligation to do anything.
When I say a sentence is “grammatical”, I mean that it’s a sentence which follows all of the rules I’ve claimed about English. When I say a sentence is “ungrammatical”, I mean that it has some properties that are not predicted, or which contradict, my rules. So if I have a rule “articles come before nouns”, then the sentence *I ate soup the is ungrammatical, because it doesn’t fit with my rule. Again, this isn’t a judgement about the sentence or the speaker. It’s a descriptive statement.
(I say “my rules” because this is my blog and this is just an explanation. In real life I’m not so pompous and when I don’t understand something then I check a descriptive source, this is a good one, or a linguistics paper, or I find a syntactician.)
Let’s walk through how a rule could be figured out in the first place. Consider the words while and during. How are they different? And what kind of rule could we come up with that describes this difference? Here’s some data to think about:
(1) I read the newspaper while I ate lunch.
(2) *I read the newspaper while lunch.
(3) I read the newspaper during lunch.
(4) *I read the newspaper during I ate lunch.
Sentences (1) and (3) are grammatical. That is, I claim that speakers of English would accept and use such a sentence in conversation. They sound like “normal” English.
Sentences (2) and (4) have a * symbol, which means “ungrammatical” (linguists have lots of these kinds of symbols). I’m claiming these are not sentences that any English speaker would sponatenously utter in a normal conversation. If you are a native speaker, you probably have a “gut feeling” that something has gone wrong with them. (And if you have some reason to challenge these claims, maybe you find these sentences perfectly acceptable, please post a comment.)
The ungrammaticality of sentences like (2) and (4) shows that while and during cannot simply be interchanged. There is some pattern to their distribution; a rule if you will. If you look at just the data above, the pattern is that during is followed by nouns and while is followed by sentences.
And that’s a rudimentary “rule” of English that describes the differences between those words. As you include more data, you made need to change your rule, and in this case we would definitely have to change our rule. It happens that while can atually be followed by other things too, like prepositional phrases (“while on vacation”) and verb phrases (“while walking my dog”). But I don’t want to turn this post into a syntax homework problem.
Now obviously you can say things like (2) and (4). There’s no physical, legal, or moral restriction on it. You can say anything you like. But it’s not normal behaviour, expect a stare if you use them in conversation, and if you search a corpus of English, you won’t come up with many or any results (and you’d need to check the context to see if the speaker corrected herself afterwards). So if someone once uttered (2), it wouldn’t mean we’d have to include it in any description of English.