You're telling a friend an amazing story, and you just get to the best part when suddenly he interrupts, "The alien and I," not "Me and the alien." Most of us would probably be annoyed, but aside from the rude interruption, does your friend have a point? Was your sentence actually grammatically incorrect? And if he still understood it, why does it even matter? From the point of view of linguistics, grammar is a set of patterns for how words are put together to form phrases or clauses, whether spoken or in writing. Different languages have different patterns. In English, the subject normally comes first, followed by the verb, and then the object, while in Japanese and many other languages, the order is subject, object, verb. Some scholars have tried to identify patterns common to all languages, but apart from some basic features, like having nouns or verbs, few of these so-called linguistic universals have been found. And while any language needs consistent patterns to function, the study of these patterns opens up an ongoing debate between two positions known as prescriptivism and descriptivism. Grossly simplified, prescriptivists think a given language should follow consistent rules, while descriptivists see variation and adaptation as a natural and necessary part of language. For much of history, the vast majority of language was spoken. But as people became more interconnected and writing gained importance, written language was standardized to allow broader communication and ensure that people in different parts of a realm could understand each other. In many languages, this standard form came to be considered the only proper one, despite being derived from just one of many spoken varieties, usually that of the people in power. Language purists worked to establish and propagate this standard by detailing a set of rules that reflected the established grammar of their times. And rules for written grammar were applied to spoken language, as well. Speech patterns that deviated from the written rules were considered corruptions, or signs of low social status, and many people who had grown up speaking in these ways were forced to adopt the standardized form. More recently, however, linguists have understood that speech is a separate phenomenon from writing with its own regularities and patterns. Most of us learn to speak at such an early age that we don't even remember it. We form our spoken repertoire through unconscious habits, not memorized rules. And because speech also uses mood and intonation for meaning, its structure is often more flexible, adapting to the needs of speakers and listeners. This could mean avoiding complex clauses that are hard to parse in real time, making changes to avoid awkward pronounciation, or removing sounds to make speech faster. The linguistic approach that tries to understand and map such differences without dictating correct ones is known as descriptivism. Rather than deciding how language should be used, it describes how people actually use it, and tracks the innovations they come up with in the process. But while the debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism continues, the two are not mutually exclusive. At its best, prescriptivism is useful for informing people about the most common established patterns at a given point in time. This is important, not only for formal contexts, but it also makes communication easier between non-native speakers from different backgrounds. Descriptivism, on the other hand, gives us insight into how our minds work and the instinctive ways in which we structure our view of the world. Ultimately, grammar is best thought of as a set of linguistic habits that are constantly being negotiated and reinvented by the entire group of language users. Like language itself, it's a wonderful and complex fabric woven through the contributions of speakers and listeners, writers and readers, prescriptivists and descriptivists, from both near and far.
Siz do'stingizga qiziq bir hikoyani so'zlab berasiz, va kulminatsiyasiga yetib keldingiz, shu joyida u sizning gapingizni bo'ladi: "osmonga chiqayotib" emas, "ko'tarilayotib". Hech kimga yoqmaydi bu holat. Xa, gapni bo'lish qo'pol, albatta. Do'stingiz nohaqmi? Gapingizda xato yo'qmidi? Gap nima haqida ketayotganini shundoq ham tushunayotgan ekan, nega unday qildi? Lingvistika nuqtai nazaridan, grammatika — so'zlarni biror gap yoki so'z birikmasiga joylashtirishga yordam beruvchi qoidalar va tuzilmalar yig'indisi, yozma nutqda ham, og'zakida nutqda ham. Bu tuzilmalar har tilda har xil. Ingliz tilida odatda ega birinchi keladi, uning ketidan kesim, undan keyin to'ldiruvchi. Yapon tilida va ko'plab boshqa tillarda esa so'z tartibi quyidagicha: ega, to'ldiruvchi, kesim. Ba'zi olimlar barcha tillar uchun umumiy modellarni topishga harakat qilishdi, biroq, ot va fe'llar mavjudligi kabi ba'zi oddiy narsalardan tashqari boshqa lingvistik universalliklar topa olishmadi. Til ishlashi uchun aniq modellar kerak bo'lgani, ularni chuqur o'rganishda ikki xil usul tarafdorlari o'rtasida bahslarga sabab bo'ldi: preskriptivizm va deskriptivizm tarafdorlari. Oddiy qilib aytganda: preskriptivistlar hisoblashicha, tilda ma'lum bir qoidalar bo'lishi kerak, deskriptivistlar esa qoidalardan og'ish va farqlanishlarni tilning muhim bir qismi sifatida ko'rishadi. Ko'p vaqtlar davomida tillar faqat og'zaki shaklda mavjud bo'lgan, lekin vaqt sayin yozma shaklga zarurat paydo bo'la boshladi. Muloqotni kengaytirish va insonlar o'rtasida o'zaro tushunshni kafolatlash uchun yozma nutq normalari shakllana boshladi. Ko'pchilik tillarda bu standart shakl aslida og'zaki shaklning variantlaridan biridan kelib chiqqan bo'lganligiga qaramay yagona to'g'ri shakl deb hisoblana boshlandi. Tilni tozalash tarafdorlari o'sha paytda ishlab chiqilgan grammatika orqali ushbu normalarni keng yoya boshladi. Grammatik qoidalar kelgusida og'zaki nutqda ham qo'llanila boshlandi. Yangi normalardan farqli og'zaki nutq normalari xato deb hisoblana boshlandi, yoki past tabaqa belgisi sifatida qabul qilingan. Bolalikdan noto'g'ri gapirishni o'rganganlarga ham bu standart normani o'zlashtirishga undashgan. Lekin keyinchalik, lingvistlar tushunishdiki, nutq aslida yozuvda farq qilishi, va uning o'zining alohida norma va modellari bo'lishi kerak. Ko'pchilik gapirishni erta o'rganishgani sabab, qanday o'rganganini eslay olmaydi. Bizning og'zaki nutq layoqatimiz ongosti odatlari tufayli shakllanadi, qoidalarni o'rganish bilan emas. Og'zaki nutqda asosiy e'tibor kayfiyat va intonatsiyaga qaratilganidek, uning tuzilishi ham juda moslashuvchan va so'zlovchi bilan tinglovchi ehtiyojlariga moslashadi. Masalan bu holatni murakkab, tinglovchi uchun tushunish qiyin bo'lgan gaplarda, qiyin talaffuz qilinadigan iboralarda yoki nutqni tezlashtirish uchun ayrim tovushlar tushishida ko'rish mumkin. Ushbu lingvistik yondashuv, bu hodisalarni tushunishga va ifodalashga harakat qiladi va tilga hech qanday qoidalarni bog'lab qo'ymaydi. Bu deskriptivizm deb nom olgan. Til qanday ishlashini ifodalashdan farqli holda, bu yo'l insonlarning tilni qanday ishlatishini va foydalanish davomida undagi yuzaga kelayotgan yangiliklarni ifodaydi. Preskriptivizm va deskriptivizm maktablari o'rtasidagi bahslar xali ham davom etayotgan bo'lsa-da, ular bir-birini inkor etmaydi. Preskriptivizmning foydasi shundaki, u ma'lum bir vaqt ichida qanday umumiy qoidalar mavjud ekanligi haqida xabar beradi. Bu nafaqat rasmiy nutqlar uchun muhim, balki chet tillarida muloqotni yanada osonlashtirish yoki jamiyatning turli qatlamidagi insonlar muloqoti uchun ham. Deskriptivizm, boshqa tomondan, bizga ongimiz qanday ishlashi haqida va dunyoqarashimiz ongostimizda qanday shakllanishi haqida ma'lumot beradi. Nihoyat, grammatika — eng maqbul til odatlari yig'indisi, va u doim katta omma tomonidan muhokama qilinadi, va doim ko'rib chiqiladi. Umumiy tilga o'xshab, grammatika — o'ziga xos va murakkab material, va u dunyoning har xil chekkasidagi tinglovchilar va so'zlovchilar, yozuvchilar va o'quvchilar, preskriptivist va deskriptivist olimlar nutqlaridan kelib chiqqan.