Oliver Kamm, a editorial writer and columnist for the Times of London, expresses his very clear stance on the existence of "proper English" in his expressively named Wall Street Journal Article "There Is No ‘Proper English’". Kamm's views are very simple, stop scolding minor details in grammar and accept that if people speak a certain way then that's the right way to speak. Kamm challenges those who prescribe grammar rules saying, "The grammatical rules invoked by pedants aren’t real rules of grammar at all. They are, at best, just stylistic conventions: An example would be the use of a double negative (I can’t get no satisfaction)." I personally think this is a very poor example that Kamm uses. While he claims that proposed grammatical rules are at best stylistic conventions, the example he give involving double negatives should make readers question if Kamm to broadly accepts how people speak as the right way to speak. Double negatives are not just a matter of stylistic conventions there is much room for misunderstanding caused their use. Double negatives are at their core logically faulty. In his example, "I can't get no satisfaction" what is being said if you logically obey the two negative modifiers is the person can get satisfaction but cannot be dissatisfaction. This is a serious problem when what is said need to be clear. How is one supposed to know when the write is following logic in the use of double negatives or just means a single negative? When communication is time sensitive or has serious repercussions the meaning of the message needs to be constantly clear. So while Kamm does go on to raise many valid points readers should not automatically take for granted what he says. Additionally, Kamm should consider revising to what extend what ever comes out of people's mouth is actually the right way to speak.
Works Cited
Kamm, Oliver. "There Is No 'Proper English'" WSJ. 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
Works Cited
Kamm, Oliver. "There Is No 'Proper English'" WSJ. 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.