'Proper' English

[jjf2003]

Following on from the last question, when is it acceptable to break the rules of language? For example, Irish poet Seamus Heaney in his poem 'Digging' describes a bottle 'corked stoppily with paper'. There is no such word in the English dictionary as stoppily, yet he gets away with it. No disrespect to Seamus Heaney, but why does he get to use a made-up word when a student would be marked down for it? Is it a priviledge reserved for writers who are already famous or successful?

[DuzyEverwork]

IMHO it never is, but then I am as guilty as the next person when sending text messages etc. I think the example accredited to Mr Heaney is the epitome of 'poetic licence', but students would have presumably studied the English language, and be marked on their knowledge of their chosen subject matter which has to be presented gramatically and legibly. One of my pet hates is people who display signs with spelling/grammar mistakes, I find this type of ignorance a complete anathmer (lol) :o).. I am standing back to allow the rush of people who are bound to want to contradict me get to their key pads...

[Quizmonster]

As the saying has it, Jjf: "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools." If you truly know the rules - and most great writers such as Heaney do - you are free to 'play' with them to your heart's content. Think of Heaney's even greater compatriot, James Joyce, and his exuberant manipulation of language for effect to see what I mean. I'm referring to such things in 'Ulysses' as Molly's stream of consciousness that goes on for dozens of pages without punctuation of any sort. Or how about the fact that the opening words of 'Finnegan's Wake' are just the continuation of the closing words of the same book?

The language expert can, effectively, do whatever he likes with words and grammatical rules. For most people, however, who use language only to communicate, the rules are essential.

[bernardo]

Any new word (or any unusual grammatical construction) can be invented by anybody for any purpose, and is therefore most effective in things like poems e.g. Jabberwocky. Grammatical rules are only conventions.

[jjf2003]

I understand now. A bit like painting, really. Picasso's abstracted figures did not look like real people, but he had already proved in his early work that he already knew the rules, so now he could bend them. Fair enough. Thanks, people.

[lshk]

It's an interesting question. For me, I think, the most important thing to remember is that English is a 'living' language - by it's very nature it must evolve and change and this should be welcomed. The student writing an essay has to work within the accepted grammatical conventions because the primary purpose of language is, of course, communication, and this is most easily achieved amongst people following the same rules (frustrating as this might be to the more creatively minded student!). A language belongs to its speakers - we should, really, feel free to do with it as we choose. This brings to mind all those people who complain about 'swearing' - these words are out there, they exist, and they are, undoubtedly uniquely expressive. Perhaps the rules that are better kept in mind are those to do with context and appropriateness (maybe even social etiquette, though I'm wary of that sounding slightly old-fashioned) - an understanding of how to express oneself appropriately according to situation etc. surely signifies an understanding of 'the rules'? A good book on this subject anyway, is Peter Trudgill's 'ociolinguistics.