The difference between right and wrong

I recently discovered an interesting debate, printed in the New York Times, about correct language. One writer was a prescriptivist – a grammarian with a strict approach to the subject; his adversary was a descriptivist – a linguist less interested in righting wrongs and more concerned with simply documenting usages. Perhaps you don't lose sleep over the correct use of which or that in relative clauses. You may not care about the contentious assertion that native speakers generally do not make mistakes (Trudgill & Andersson, 1992). But when you encounter someone else's error, your reaction may determine how much of a pedant you are.

Linguistic pedantry is based on a shared, educated yet often nebulous perception of correctness, which is often used to humiliate others. The prescriptivist's value judgements concerning a trangressor's intelligence will fuel their indignation; whereas the descriptivist will acknowledge the need for a standard form despite supporting linguistic variation. Though when grammarians break their own rules (see the New York Times piece); when institutions create their own style guides and when no single dictionary enjoys universal authority; this standard form starts to slip. Everyone becomes his or her own authority – a situation that may have been exacerbated by the decision in 2010 not to print the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. It's why the army of lesser Lynne Trusses will begin their prescriptivist rants on message boards with "I was always taught that ... " or "I've always been led to believe that ...", deflecting any scrutiny that may threaten their self-righteousness. An idiot with an idiolect is becoming an increasingly potent force. 

An old university friend – a fellow linguist – is a writer, editor and proof-reader of English. In contrast, as an English teacher and translator, I inhabit the no-man's land between English and German. So although we both deal with words daily; our work is significantly different. Whereas my friend may despair at her compatriot's inability to construct a coherent English sentence; when I am proofreading texts or corporate style guides written in English by non-native writers, I may encounter the following:

1. Speech marks when "no-one" is speaking

2. «Guillemets to denote speech or emphasis, though these are not used in English»

3. Ampersands everywhere (&), even when there's not a firm of solicitors in sight

4. A mix of the grammatical and typographical markers of both British and American English

Of course it's down to me to correct errors and to strive for consistency – and I love my job! But however you view these errors, without a shared perception of correctness, I cannot castigate a non-native English writer for making them. We now live in an online world where in English – as in other languages – language varieties respect arbitrary national boundaries less than they ever did. So we now have to acknowledge variation and renegotiate shared notions of correctness and the standard varieties required for effective communication.