Section 2.2 Prescriptive Rules
Many people believe that prescriptive rules represent timeless standards of good English. In fact, most have specific historical origins, and their status as "rules" often reflects social and political factors more than linguistic ones.
The Origins of Prescriptive Grammar in English.
The tradition of prescriptive grammar in English emerged in the eighteenth century, a period when many educated people believed that English needed to be refined, regulated, and fixed. Writers and scholars worried that English was changing too quickly, that it lacked the regularity and precision of Latin, and that it needed authoritative guidance.
Several factors drove this anxiety:
-
England was becoming a major colonial and commercial power, and its elites wanted a "proper" language to match their status
-
The rise of printing and literacy created demand for standardized written forms
-
Latin remained the prestige language of scholarship, and English seemed irregular and vernacular by comparison
-
Social mobility meant that people could no longer rely on family background to signal status—language became a marker of education and refinement
Into this environment came the grammarians.
The Great Grammarians.
Robert Lowth (1710–1787), a bishop and Oxford professor, published A Short Introduction to English Grammar (Lowth, 1762). Lowth’s grammar was immensely influential, establishing many of the prescriptive rules still taught today. He declared that ending sentences with prepositions was “an idiom which our language is strongly inclined to” but which should be avoided in formal writing. He criticized double negatives as illogical (even though they had been standard in English for centuries, including in Chaucer and Shakespeare). He insisted on “whom” as the objective case, even in contexts where “who” was more natural.
Lindley Murray (1745–1826), an American-born grammarian, published English Grammar (Murray, 1795), which became the most widely used grammar textbook for the next century. Murray borrowed heavily from Lowth but was even more dogmatic. His grammar went through over 200 editions and shaped generations of English speakers’ beliefs about "correct" grammar.
What’s striking about these grammarians is that they often based their rules not on how English actually worked, but on how they thought it should work—often by analogy to Latin.
Latin as the Model.
Many prescriptive rules were borrowed from Latin grammar, despite fundamental differences between the two languages.
The split infinitive rule: Latin infinitives are single words (amare = "to love"), so they cannot be split. English infinitives are two words (“to love”), so they can be split (“to boldly go”). The prescriptive rule against splitting infinitives makes no sense for English—it was imported wholesale from Latin because Latin was considered the model of a proper language. Writers from Samuel Johnson to George Bernard Shaw to Gene Roddenberry have split infinitives with great effectiveness.
The rule against ending sentences with prepositions: Latin prepositions must precede their objects (ad portam = "to the gate"). But English has a long history of what linguists call "preposition stranding"—leaving the preposition at the end of a sentence (“What are you looking at?”). This construction is natural, idiomatic, and has been used by the best English writers for centuries. As Winston Churchill supposedly quipped about this rule, “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.”
The rule against double negatives: Latin uses single negation, so grammarians reasoned that English should too. They argued that two negatives make a positive (“I don’t want nothing” supposedly means “I want something”). But this logic fails for language. Multiple negation for emphasis is found in many languages and was standard in English until the eighteenth century. “I can’t get no satisfaction” is emphatic negation, not logical confusion—and every speaker of English understands it perfectly.
Social and Political Functions.
Prescriptive rules often serve as markers of social status and education. Knowing and following these rules signals membership in educated, privileged classes. Conversely, not following them can mark a speaker as uneducated or lower-class, regardless of their actual intelligence or capabilities.
This social function helps explain why prescriptive rules persist even when they don’t reflect how most people actually speak. The rules become ways of distinguishing "us" from "them," of maintaining social boundaries. The people who make and enforce the rules are typically those who already hold social power, and the varieties they speak become the "standard" against which others are judged.
Consider who benefits from prescriptive rules:
-
Children who grow up in families that speak the prestige variety arrive at school already "knowing the rules"
-
Children who speak other varieties must learn a second system to be judged competent
-
Test scores and "language proficiency" often measure conformity to prescriptive norms rather than communicative ability
-
Professional advancement frequently depends on mastering prestige forms
This doesn’t mean prescriptive rules are arbitrary or unimportant. Many of them promote clarity, precision, or ease of reading. The conventions of formal writing help create a common standard that readers can rely on. But it does mean that we should think critically about prescriptive rules—understanding their origins, recognizing their social functions, and evaluating whether they serve our purposes in a given situation.
A Catalog of Prescriptive Rules.
Let’s examine some common prescriptive rules, their origins, and their status today:
"Don’t end a sentence with a preposition."
This rule was borrowed from Latin and has never reflected actual English usage. Sentences like “Who did you talk to?” and “That’s something I won’t put up with” are perfectly natural and idiomatic. Straining to avoid final prepositions often produces awkward, stilted sentences. Most modern style guides acknowledge that this "rule" is outdated.
"Don’t start a sentence with ’and’ or ’but’."
Many teachers prohibit sentence-initial conjunctions, but the best writers have always used them. The King James Bible (“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light”), Jane Austen, Ernest Hemingway, and countless others begin sentences with conjunctions. They create emphasis, establish connections between ideas, and can make prose more vigorous. The prohibition may be useful for beginning writers who overuse this construction, but it’s not a rule of English grammar.
"Never split an infinitive."
Borrowed from Latin (where infinitives can’t be split because they’re single words), this rule has been violated by excellent writers for centuries. Sometimes splitting the infinitive produces a better sentence: “to boldly go” has a rhythm that “to go boldly” or “boldly to go” lacks. Modern style guides generally advise against awkward splits but permit them when they improve clarity or flow.
"Use the serial comma" (or don’t).
The serial comma (also called the Oxford comma) is the comma before “and” in a series: “I bought apples, oranges, and bananas.” Some style guides require it; others prohibit it. This is purely a matter of convention—neither option is grammatically superior. Being consistent matters more than which option you choose. (Though partisans of the serial comma love to cite ambiguous sentences that can be resolved by its presence.)
"Avoid the passive voice."
Many writing guides advise against passive constructions (“The mouse was eaten by the cat”) in favor of active ones (“The cat ate the mouse”). Active voice is often more direct and vigorous. But passive voice is useful when:
-
The agent is unknown: The window was broken during the storm.
-
The agent is unimportant: The building was constructed in 1890.
-
You want to emphasize the action or patient: The suspect was arrested.
-
Scientific convention calls for it: The data were analyzed using...
Skilled writers use both voices strategically.
"Use ’whom’ as the object of a verb or preposition."
In formal written English, “whom” is the objective form: “To whom did you speak?” “Whom did you see?” But in spoken English and informal writing, “who” has largely replaced “whom” in most contexts. Using “whom” incorrectly (hypercorrection) often sounds worse than using “who”. Many linguists predict that “whom” will eventually disappear from English—it’s already rare in casual speech.
"Don’t use singular ’they.’"
Traditionally, “they” was considered exclusively plural, and singular indefinite reference required “he” (as in “Everyone should do his best”). But singular “they” has been used for centuries—Shakespeare wrote “And everyone to rest themselves betake” in The Rape of Lucrece (Shakespeare, 1594)—and has become standard in contemporary English for indefinite and nonbinary reference. Most style guides now accept it, and the American Dialect Society (2020) named singular “they” its Word of the Year in 2015 and Word of the Decade in 2020.
