How Grammar and Rules Unite People

Introduction: Language and its Rules

Language and its Rules have been a passion of mine for many years. In my early days as a student when English teachers announced in a demanding way that “Ain’t Ain’t a word” I found myself questioning the pronouncement. If it were not a word, why would one use it twice in the same sentence? The truth is that in any language, spoken words rule.

If a word is used in a fully formed language over time and within the rule-bound structure of the language in question it is indeed a word. Usage in a case like ‘Ain’t’ is a factor that makes it a useful word, understood as a word by speakers of the language in question.

In this case American English. My question was answered when in graduate school in a general linguistics class the instructor posed the question; “Is ain’t a word in American English?” I remember answering the question by saying, “Of course it is, most American English speakers use it so it must be.” The instructor smiled and congratulated me on that insight.

As a former professor of language and literacy, I spent decades exploring the intricate ways people communicate. My work focused on debunking the myths surrounding language, demonstrating that all languages are rule-governed, logical systems. These systems function effectively for communication regardless of perceived correctness in grammar, pronunciation, or usage across social classes.

Insights

A key insight from my career is that no language or dialect is superior. Every speaker uses a unique idiolect—an individualized form of language shaped by personal experience and environment. While these idiolects differ slightly from one speaker to another, they generally conform to the patterns of their shared dialect; in other words, they are mutually comprehensible. This phenomenon underscores the diversity and adaptability of language as a tool for communication.

My teaching challenged the idea of “bad” grammar or “wrong” pronunciation, emphasizing that variations like regional accents or social dialects enrich language rather than diminish it. Understanding these principles reveals that every language, dialect, or creole deserves respect and acknowledgment as a legitimate means of communication.

Language and its Rules Define Spoken Communication

Language relies on structured rules to bridge communication gaps between idiolects. These rules ensure clarity and mutual understanding even when speakers differ in expression.
Take English, for example. Variations in spelling—such as “color” in American English and “colour” in British English—do not hinder comprehension because the underlying grammar remains consistent. Similarly, regional expressions like “y’all” in the Southern United States or “you lot” in the United Kingdom conform to subject-verb agreement rules, reinforcing their validity.

Pidgins and Creoles illustrate how rule-governed systems evolve under unique circumstances. Pidgins arise as simplified languages for trade or limited interaction. Over time, these systems gain complexity, becoming creoles. Haitian Creole, for instance, originated as a pidgin blending French vocabulary with West African linguistic structures. Today, it is a fully developed language with consistent grammar and pronunciation, spoken natively by millions.

Without rules, communication fails. Consider the ambiguity in a phrase like “She go yesterday.” While comprehensible in context, it lacks the grammatical consistency of “She went yesterday,” which adheres to English’s standard tense rules. These distinctions demonstrate why language systems must follow a set of rules to function effectively.

Language is Not Cultural, Racial, or Gender-Specific

Languages transcend cultural, racial, and gender boundaries, serving as universal tools for expression. They belong to all who use them within a shared framework, regardless of identity.

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) exemplifies this universality. While some dismiss AAVE as “slang,” it follows systematic grammatical rules distinct from Standard American English. For instance, the habitual “be” in AAVE—“She be working”—expresses ongoing action, a nuance not present in standard grammar. AAVE’s legitimacy as a linguistic system reflects its rule-governed nature, not the social status of its speakers.
Gender-neutral expressions further highlight language’s adaptability. Terms like “Latinx” or “Mx.” emerged to address gender diversity, showcasing how languages evolve inclusively. Similarly, languages like Turkish and Finnish lack gendered pronouns altogether, emphasizing the irrelevance of gender in linguistic structure.

Variations within a language enrich its functionality. Spanish offers a compelling example: Latin American Spanish and Castilian Spanish differ in pronunciation, verb usage, and vocabulary but share a consistent grammar that unites speakers. This adaptability ensures mutual understanding across regions and validates all variations as legitimate forms of Spanish.

Pure Language: A Rule-Governed System

A language’s purity stems from its adherence to rules, not its association with specific groups or regions. Each variation remains valid as long as it is rule-governed and spoken by communities.

French Canadian Cars and BRB or LOL

Consider French. Canadian French includes vocabulary and pronunciation distinct from Parisian French, such as using “char” for “car” instead of “voiture.” Despite these differences, both adhere to the same grammatical structure, enabling communication between speakers.
Even non-traditional languages like digital slang demonstrate rule-governed purity.

Expressions like “BRB” (be right back) or emojis follow agreed-upon conventions, ensuring clear communication. This modern evolution reaffirms that any system with consistent rules qualifies as a language.
These examples illustrate that linguistic variation is not a flaw but a feature. By embracing the diversity of rule-governed systems, we recognize the richness and adaptability inherent in human communication.

Some Final Thoughts: Language and its Rules

Often dialects are mistaken as belonging to under-educated speakers, attributed to racial groups as a low-brow version of English spoken by generations of African-American speakers. In both cases those that ascribe negativity to languages other than their own are mistaken.
Stemming from attitudes of classism or racism actual fully formed languages other than what one might consider standard American English are not seen as ‘real’ languages.

Suffice it to say, these people are simply wrong. Just because one cannot fully understand a language does not mean it is not one.

The whole point of this post is to break down linguistic barriers to language other than the dialect that one speaks by understanding that all fully formed languages may be thought of as equal to all other languages that are fully formed. Just because one does not understand the language does not mean it is inferior because of race, ethnicity, and even grammar and pronunciation rules. Let me cite a few examples:

Pronunciation

Police: think of how you say this word…now consider that in my Chicago accent, there is no ‘o’ in my pronunciation. I drop the o and blend the p and l so that I say something like ‘Plise’ as to most Chicagoans born in the mid-20th century.

Hill: A word with multiple meanings and spellings, only context reveals the intended meaning. Similar pronunciations like ‘he’ll’ or in some dialects ‘heal’ mostly in the southern United States. Other words like sea and see share a similar pronunciation but a different spelling. To unpack this feature one must turn the clock back 11 centuries to old English to understand the two spellings that produce the same sound.

Finally, in AAVE the construction ‘ax’ which translates to standard English as ask is not a mispronunciation, rather it extends back to around the time of the Norman conquest of England in 1066 C.E. where there were two clear words in Saxon English for ask, when speaking to a familiar one used the verb ‘to asken’ but when speaking to a servant, one used the verb ‘to aksen.’ These forms followed the English colonists so that when southern slaveholders spoke to their slaves the latter took precedence. This morphed into AAVE into the ‘Ax’ used in a sentence like ‘May I ax a question?’ Perfectly appropriate within the fully formed AAVE English.

Grammar

Grammar rules also vary from dialect to dialect. In referring to a group of people (2 or more) various constructions such as ‘y’all’ in the American southern dialect. Where I constructed language the term ‘you guys’ which was a gender-neutral utterance. In some parts of the eastern United States, ‘youse’ or ‘youse guys’ serves the same purpose. “Yuns’ in a Pittsburgh dialect also does the same job. Several other ways in American English do the same thing.

I find it interesting, however, that in Texas, especially West Texas, ‘y’all’ can be used alone to indicate two others being addressed. If there are three others, the reference changes to ‘all y’all’ and in the hospitality businesses ‘y’all’ and ‘all y’all’ morph into a plural possessive by adding a plural ‘s’ so that a sentence like “I’ll be all y’alls server,” is not uncommon. These are grammar rules that are consistently applied in English and in all other fully formed languages. Without the rules, communication would be impossible.

One final grammar rule that extends to AAVE, is when a speaker says, “I be working” to mean I am continuing to work, the ‘be’ traces back to Irish and Scotts-Irish influences in the colonial south. It is no different than when Mr. Scott of Startrek fame, announces “Captian, there be whales here.” Scotty is inferring that not only did the beaming of whales into the makeshift aquarium on the Enterprise but that they will continue to be there. AAVE simply took this structure and attached it to the rules of AAVE.

Sources Cited

Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University Press.
DeGraff, M. (2005). Linguistics for Creole Studies. Annual Review of Anthropology.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Suggestions for Further Reading

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech.
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. (2014). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.
McWhorter, J. (2018). The Creole Debate.
Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society.
Yule, G. (2016). The Study of Language.
Fairclough, N. (2014). Language and Power.
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in Society.

DISCLAIMER: The images on this page, and across the whole blog are created using AI imaging and are intended to illustrate the argument in the post. They are NOT representing real people or events directly, rather the images enhance the argument and nothing more. We do not intend any offense, nor do we wish to single out individuals in any way by the images themselves.

Some Posts You May Like

Origins of Discrimination: A 7-Century Legacy of Otherness

The Hubris of Big Pharma in the USA: An American Ripoff

Unbalanced Policy Filter? Trump vs the World in 3 Potential Missteps