Good English and Bad

Ever wondered why it is ungrammatical to say “I’m busy, are I not?”, yet “I’m busy aren’t I?” is considered perfect English? According to Bill Bryson (Good English and Bad, 1990), this consideration of deciding what exactly is good English and what is bad is an entirely prejudice choice. Bryson states that “English grammar is so complex and confusing for the one very simple reason that its rules and terminology are based on Latin – a language with which it has precious little in common” (pg. 145). As a result, there “are no officially appointed guardians for the English language” (pg. 147), and are what they are “because they are” (pg. 149). In the world of English, one of the main doubtless virtues is that “it is a fluid and democratic language” in which change and evolution are a natural process.

In order to conform English to a criteria of set rules, grammarians decided to model these rules from those of Latin grammar in the 17^th century. Bryson believes that the English grammar is complex as it is largely reliant on its rules and terminology based Latin. In Latin, for example, it is impossible to split an infinitive. Therefore, English authorities decided that the English grammar must conform to this rule as well. In the light of Bryson’s perspective, this decision is “patent absurdity” as both languages have very little in common. Essentially, the author is suggesting that because of these anomalies “the parts of speech must be so broadly defined as to be almost meaningless”. Because of these complexities, Bryson mocks the English grammar as due to these complexities “the authorities themselves often stumble”. The English language cannot simply be influenced by a subjective statement of Robert Lowth, or simply through arguments of conforming the rules to those of Latin. In reality, the English grammar and language are influenced by the speakers themselves, as well as authoritarian individuals who as a whole imply certain rules as the new norm.

Bryson’s discussion allows me to reflect and evaluate on own lapses in the English grammar. As English is my second language, understanding the English grammar at a first glance was very challenging and intimidating. Yet, after a few months of communicating in English, I simply accepted that certain grammatical rules were just the way they were. To this day, I continue to find some grammatical rules perplexing, but I had never pondered on why these rules were the way they were. I strongly agree with Bryson’s perspective that it is “patent absurdity” to conform the English grammar to Latin rules, as both have an entirely different structure in its parts of speech. Bryson’s discussions has engaged my opinion on the English language itself. In my opinion, I strongly believe that the English language should have the ability to evolve throughout history, without being locked inside a box of rules dictated by a ‘dead’ and ancient language. 

Works Cited

Bryson, Bill. (1990). Good English and Bad. In B. Bryson, The Mother Tongue (pp. 143-51)