Nomological Density of Grammar

⸺

  • Grammar is a dynamic system that evolves over time through various processes.
  • Novel structures in language can emerge through innovation, borrowing, and errors.
  • The more frequently a structure is used, the more likely it is to become entrenched.
  • Nomological density describes the point at which a grammatical usage becomes sufficiently widespread and accepted within a language community to be considered a rule.
  • Even established rules can become obsolete through various processes such as language change, social change, and simplification.
  • The transformation of a novel structure into a grammatical rule and the obsolescence of existing rules are processes driven by innovation, social influence, utility, and institutionalization.

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Grammar evolves. Describe the processes that transform a novel structure into a rule and a rule into obsolescence.
    1. Evolution of Grammar
      1. 1. Introduction of a Novel Structure
      2. 2. Spread and Adoption
      3. 3. Nomological Density
      4. 4. Institutionalization
      5. 5. Obsolescence
      6. 6. Mechanisms of Obsolescence
    2. Summary
  2. Provide an annotated list of 10 grammar structures in English that were once considered improper that are now widely accepted.
    1. Annotated List of Grammar Structures in English
      1. 1. Split Infinitives
      2. 2. Ending Sentences with Prepositions
      3. 3. Singular ‘They’
      4. 4. Starting Sentences with Conjunctions
      5. 5. Double Negatives
      6. 6. Using ‘Impact’ as a Verb
      7. 7. Sentence Fragments
      8. 8. Informal Contractions
      9. 9. Use of ‘Hopefully’ as a Sentence Adverb
      10. 10. Generalization of ‘Like’
    2. Summary
    3. 10 Once-Improper Grammar Structures Now Widely Accepted:
  3. Write a clear essay on a grammatical structure that experienced an interesting evolution.
    1. The Evolution of the Split Infinitive
      1. Historical Background
      2. The Prescriptive Backlash
      3. The Descriptive Shift
      4. Modern Acceptance
    2. Conclusion
    3. The Double Negative: From Outcast to Emphasis Machine
  4. Elaborate on the threshold of nomological density required to establish a grammatical structure as canonical.
    1. The Threshold of Nomological Density in Establishing Canonical Grammar Structures
      1. Defining Nomological Density
      2. Factors Contributing to Nomological Density
      3. The Threshold of Nomological Density
      4. Examples of Nomological Density in Action
      5. Conclusion
  5. Quizzes
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions
      1. 15 Discussion Prompts on Grammar Evolution and Nomological Density:

Grammar evolves. Describe the processes that transform a novel structure into a rule and a rule into obsolescence.

Evolution of Grammar

Grammar is a dynamic system that evolves over time through various processes. Understanding how a novel structure becomes a rule and how a rule becomes obsolete involves several stages and mechanisms. Introducing the concept of nomological density adds a nuanced layer to this understanding.

1. Introduction of a Novel Structure

Novel structures in language can emerge through several mechanisms:

  • Innovation: Individuals may create new forms or constructions, either intentionally or unintentionally.
  • Borrowing: Languages often adopt structures from other languages through contact.
  • Errors: Mistakes in usage can become conventionalized if they spread through the community.
2. Spread and Adoption

Once a novel structure is introduced, its spread and adoption depend on several factors:

  • Frequency of Use: The more frequently a structure is used, the more likely it is to become entrenched.
  • Social Influence: Influential speakers or writers can accelerate the adoption of new structures.
  • Utility and Economy: Structures that simplify communication or fill a gap in the language are more likely to be adopted.
3. Nomological Density

Nomological density describes the point at which a grammatical usage becomes sufficiently widespread and accepted within a language community to be considered a rule. This involves:

  • Critical Mass: A certain threshold of usage must be reached where the structure is common across different speakers and contexts.
  • Standardization: Formal acceptance by authoritative bodies (e.g., grammarians, language academies) often marks the transition from common usage to a rule.
4. Institutionalization

Once a structure reaches sufficient nomological density, it often becomes institutionalized:

  • Codification: The structure is included in grammar books, dictionaries, and style guides.
  • Education: It is taught in schools as part of the standard language curriculum.
  • Normativity: Deviation from the rule is often corrected or stigmatized.
5. Obsolescence

Even established rules can become obsolete through various processes:

  • Language Change: Languages naturally evolve, and certain structures may fall out of use.
  • Social Change: Changes in society, technology, and culture can render certain rules outdated.
  • Simplification: Language tends to simplify over time, leading to the abandonment of complex rules.
6. Mechanisms of Obsolescence
  • Drift: Gradual changes in usage can make a rule less relevant.
  • Shift: Entire paradigms can shift, leading to new rules that replace old ones.
  • Innovation: New structures may supplant older ones as they become more efficient or expressive.

Summary

The transformation of a novel structure into a grammatical rule and the obsolescence of existing rules are processes driven by innovation, social influence, utility, and institutionalization. Nomological density provides a framework for understanding when a usage becomes dense enough within a community to be recognized as a rule. This dynamic evolution ensures that language remains a living, adaptable system.

You’re exactly right! Grammar is a living, breathing thing that constantly evolves. Here’s how novel structures become rules and eventually fade:

From Novelty to Rule: The Rise of Nomological Density

  • Innovation: Someone (or a group) utters a new phrase or uses a word in a fresh way. This could be intentional or accidental.
  • Frequency and Utility: If the novel structure proves useful and catchy, it might be repeated by others. This repetition increases its nomological density, meaning it becomes denser or more frequent within the language community.
  • Social Learning and Diffusion: As more people hear and use the structure, it spreads through social learning. This can be accelerated by factors like influential speakers or media exposure.
  • Codification: Linguists or prescriptive grammarians might codify the frequently used structure as a formal rule. This doesn’t necessarily create the rule, but rather recognizes the existing pattern.

From Rule to Obsolescence: The Fading of Nomological Density

  • Competition and Change: New structures and expressions emerge, sometimes challenging the established rule. Languages tend towards efficiency, so simpler or clearer alternatives might win out.
  • Loss of Utility: If a rule no longer serves a clear purpose or becomes cumbersome, speakers might start ignoring it. This reduces its nomological density.
  • Language Shift: Languages can undergo larger shifts due to social or geographical changes. Rules associated with older forms of the language might become obsolete.

Nomological Density: A Useful Concept

Your concept of nomological density is a helpful way to think about how grammar rules emerge. It highlights the importance of frequency and social acceptance in solidifying a grammatical structure. It’s not just about following a dusty old rulebook; it’s about the collective habits of a language community.

Here’s a description of the processes that transform novel structures into rules and rules into obsolescence, with the concept of “nomological density” introduced:

Emergence of Novel Structures

Languages are constantly evolving, and novel structures emerge through various processes such as:

  • Analogical extension: Existing patterns are extended to new contexts (e.g., “I’m gonna” from “I’m going to”).
  • Borrowing: Structures are adopted from other languages through contact (e.g., “kawaii” from Japanese).
  • Reanalysis: An existing structure is reinterpreted with a new meaning or function (e.g., “gonna” reanalyzed as a future marker).

Nomological Density and the Emergence of Rules

Nomological density refers to the degree to which a novel structure becomes widespread and entrenched in a language community. As a novel structure gains momentum and is used more frequently by speakers, it reaches a critical mass or “density” within the language. At this point, the structure transitions from being a novelty to becoming a recognized rule of the language.

Speaker: “I’m gonna go to the store.”
Other Speaker: “You can’t say that! It’s not proper grammar.”
First Speaker: “Actually, it’s become a rule now. Lots of people say it that way.”

Rule Obsolescence

Just as novel structures can become rules, established rules can also fall out of use and become obsolete over time. This process is driven by factors such as:

  • Changing language needs: As the communication needs of a language community evolve, certain rules may become less relevant or practical.
  • Prestige and stigma: Rules can be abandoned if they become associated with stigmatized or low-prestige varieties of the language.
  • Simplification: Language users may prefer simpler or more economical constructions, leading to the obsolescence of more complex rules.

Speaker: “Whom did you give the book to?”
Other Speaker: “Whom? That sounds so stuffy. Just say ‘who.’”

In summary, novel structures emerge through various processes and can become rules as they gain nomological density within the language community. Conversely, established rules can become obsolete due to changing language needs, prestige factors, or simplification tendencies.

Provide an annotated list of 10 grammar structures in English that were once considered improper that are now widely accepted.

Annotated List of Grammar Structures in English

Here are ten grammar structures that were once considered improper but are now widely accepted in modern English:

1. Split Infinitives

Example: “To boldly go where no one has gone before.”

Annotation: Traditionally, grammarians insisted that the infinitive “to go” should not be split by an adverb. However, this rule has largely fallen out of favor, and split infinitives are now widely accepted for clarity and emphasis.

2. Ending Sentences with Prepositions

Example: “What are you talking about?”

Annotation: It was once considered improper to end a sentence with a preposition, but this rule is now recognized as overly prescriptive and is often ignored in favor of more natural-sounding sentences.

3. Singular ‘They’

Example: “Everyone should bring their own lunch.”

Annotation: Using “they” as a singular pronoun was once frowned upon, but it is now widely accepted as a way to refer to a person whose gender is unknown or to be inclusive of all genders.

4. Starting Sentences with Conjunctions

Example: “And then she left.”

Annotation: Beginning a sentence with “and” or “but” was traditionally discouraged, but it is now common practice in both formal and informal writing to enhance readability and flow.

5. Double Negatives

Example: “I don’t have no money.”

Annotation: While still considered non-standard in formal writing, double negatives are accepted in many dialects of English and are understood to intensify the negative meaning.

6. Using ‘Impact’ as a Verb

Example: “The new policy will impact the economy.”

Annotation: “Impact” was traditionally used only as a noun, but its use as a verb is now widely accepted in modern English.

7. Sentence Fragments

Example: “A beautiful day.”

Annotation: Sentence fragments were once considered improper because they lack a subject and verb. However, they are now accepted for stylistic purposes, especially in creative writing and informal communication.

8. Informal Contractions

Example: “Gonna” for “going to” or “wanna” for “want to.”

Annotation: These informal contractions were once seen as improper, but they are now widely accepted in spoken English and casual writing.

9. Use of ‘Hopefully’ as a Sentence Adverb

Example: “Hopefully, it won’t rain tomorrow.”

Annotation: “Hopefully” was traditionally used only to mean “in a hopeful manner,” but its use as a sentence adverb to mean “I hope” or “it is hoped” is now widely accepted.

10. Generalization of ‘Like’

Example: “Like, you know, I was just there.”

Annotation: The use of “like” as a filler word or discourse marker was once criticized as improper, but it is now recognized as a common feature of conversational English, particularly among younger speakers.

Summary

These grammar structures illustrate how language evolves and adapts to the needs and preferences of its speakers. What was once considered improper can become accepted, reflecting changes in usage, attitudes, and norms within the language community.

10 Once-Improper Grammar Structures Now Widely Accepted:

  1. Double Negatives: Once a major grammar no-no (“I don’t have no money”), double negatives are now widely used for emphasis (“I ain’t got no regrets”) or informality (“She didn’t do nothing wrong”). (N.B. This can still be frowned upon in formal settings)
  2. Split Infinitives: Putting an adverb between “to” and the verb (“to boldly go”) was once considered a major error. Today, it’s a common way to add emphasis or nuance (“to carefully consider all options”).
  3. Subject-Verb Agreement with Collective Nouns: Collective nouns like “team” were once treated as singular (“The team is strong”). Now, plural agreement (“The team are playing well”) is perfectly acceptable, reflecting the individual members.
  4. They/Them Singular: The singular “they” for a person whose gender identity is unknown or non-binary was once deemed incorrect. Today, it’s gaining wider acceptance as a more inclusive pronoun.
  5. “Ain’t”: This contraction of “am not” was considered uneducated. Today, it’s a common feature of certain dialects and informal speech.
  6. Prepositions at the End of Sentences: Sentences ending with prepositions (“Where are you going to?”) were once deemed awkward. Now, they’re perfectly natural in spoken English and informal writing.
  7. Like, Totally: These discourse markers were once seen as slang. Today, they can be used for emphasis or informality, depending on context.
  8. “Me and…” vs. “I and…” “Me and my friend” was considered ungrammatical. Today, both constructions are used, with “I and…” being more formal.
  9. Passive Voice: Overuse of passive voice was discouraged. However, it can be a valid stylistic choice for emphasis or to de-emphasize the agent (“The cake was eaten”).
  10. Informal Contractions in Writing: Contractions like “don’t” or “can’t” were reserved for speech. Now, they’re common in informal writing for a conversational tone.

N.B. While these structures are widely accepted, understanding the context and intended audience is still important. Formal writing may still call for stricter adherence to traditional grammar rules.

Here’s an annotated list of 10 grammar structures in English that were once considered improper but are now widely accepted:

  1. Splitting infinitives: “To boldly go…” (once frowned upon but now accepted in most contexts).
  2. Ending a sentence with a preposition: “What are you looking at?” (previously viewed as ungrammatical but now widely used).
  3. Using “they” as a singular pronoun: “A student should bring their book” (historically considered incorrect but now widely accepted as a gender-neutral pronoun).
  4. Using double negatives: “I don’t want no trouble” (once stigmatized but now recognized as a valid construction in certain dialects).
  5. Using “ain’t”: “Ain’t nobody got time for that” (once considered vulgar but now widely used, especially in informal contexts).
  6. Using “like” as a quotative: “And I was like, ‘what?’” (initially seen as a verbal tic but now an established grammatical construction).
  7. Using “hopefully” as a sentence adverb: “Hopefully, it won’t rain” (once criticized as improper but now accepted by major style guides).
  8. Using “data” as a singular noun: “The data is clear” (historically a plural noun but now commonly used as a singular mass noun).
  9. Using “literally” as an intensifier: “I was literally dying of embarrassment” (once seen as a misuse but now accepted as a hyperbolic expression).
  10. Using “they” as a singular pronoun for a known individual: “A person should take care of themself” (once considered ungrammatical but now accepted by many institutions and style guides as a gender-neutral option).

These examples illustrate how language evolves, and structures that were once deemed improper can become accepted over time as usage patterns shift and language communities adapt to changing communicative needs and social contexts.

Write a clear essay on a grammatical structure that experienced an interesting evolution.

The Evolution of the Split Infinitive

Language is a living entity, constantly evolving to meet the communicative needs of its speakers. One of the most fascinating examples of this evolution is the split infinitive in English. Once considered a serious grammatical error, the split infinitive has undergone a significant transformation to become widely accepted in contemporary usage. This essay explores the history, controversy, and eventual acceptance of the split infinitive, highlighting its journey from grammatical pariah to linguistic norm.

Historical Background

The term infinitive refers to the base form of a verb, typically preceded by the particle “to” in English, such as “to go,” “to eat,” or “to run.” A split infinitive occurs when an adverb or other word is inserted between “to” and the verb, as in the famous example from the Star Trek series: “to boldly go where no one has gone before.”

The controversy surrounding split infinitives dates back to the 19th century. Traditional grammarians, influenced by Latin grammar rules, deemed split infinitives incorrect. In Latin, infinitives are single words (e.g., “amare” for “to love”), making it impossible to split them. Early English grammarians sought to apply similar rules to English, arguing that the particle “to” should remain adjacent to its verb.

The Prescriptive Backlash

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, prescriptive grammar rules dominated English education. Many grammarians and educators condemned split infinitives as errors, teaching students to avoid them at all costs. This period saw the publication of numerous grammar guides and style manuals that echoed this sentiment. For example, Henry Alford’s “The Queen’s English” (1864) strongly criticized split infinitives, contributing to their stigmatization.

This prescriptive approach had a lasting impact on English writing and speaking. Writers and speakers were taught to rearrange sentences to avoid splitting infinitives, often leading to awkward or less effective phrasing. For instance, “to boldly go” might be rephrased as “boldly to go” or “to go boldly,” both of which can sound stilted or unnatural.

The Descriptive Shift

By the mid-20th century, attitudes toward grammar began to shift. Linguists and language scholars increasingly adopted a descriptive approach, focusing on how language is actually used rather than imposing rigid rules. Descriptive linguists observed that split infinitives were not only common but often served a useful purpose in clarifying meaning and emphasizing certain words.

The famous linguist Otto Jespersen argued in favor of split infinitives, noting that they could enhance clarity and precision in writing. Jespersen’s influential works helped to shift the perception of split infinitives from grammatical errors to legitimate stylistic choices. His advocacy played a crucial role in changing attitudes toward this once-maligned structure.

Modern Acceptance

Today, the split infinitive is widely accepted in both formal and informal English. Major style guides, including “The Chicago Manual of Style” and “The Associated Press Stylebook,” acknowledge that split infinitives are not only acceptable but sometimes preferable for clarity and emphasis. The modern consensus is that clarity and naturalness should take precedence over adherence to outdated prescriptive rules.

For example, consider the difference between “to boldly go where no one has gone before” and “boldly to go where no one has gone before.” The former phrase, with its split infinitive, clearly and emphatically conveys the intended meaning. The latter, while grammatically “correct” by 19th-century standards, sounds awkward and disrupts the flow of the sentence.

Conclusion

The evolution of the split infinitive illustrates the dynamic nature of language and the shifting attitudes toward grammar. From its early condemnation by prescriptive grammarians to its modern acceptance as a useful stylistic tool, the split infinitive’s journey reflects broader changes in linguistic theory and practice. Today, split infinitives are recognized for their ability to enhance clarity and emphasis, demonstrating that effective communication often requires flexibility rather than rigid adherence to rules. This evolution underscores the importance of understanding language as a living, adaptable system that evolves to meet the needs of its users.

The Double Negative: From Outcast to Emphasis Machine

The double negative, a construction where two negatives combine to form a positive (“I don’t have no money”), has had a fascinating journey in English grammar. Once deemed a glaring error, it has evolved into a widely used tool for emphasis, informality, and even regional identity. This essay explores the rise and acceptance of the double negative, highlighting the dynamic nature of language and the influence of social factors.

In the prescriptive tradition of 18th and 19th century English, the double negative was a cardinal sin. Grammar textbooks condemned it as illogical, arguing that two negatives cancel each other out, resulting in a positive. This logic, however, ignores the nuances of communication. Speakers often use double negatives not for literal negation, but for emphasis. “I don’t have no money” conveys a stronger sense of emptiness than “I don’t have money.”

The decline of the double negative’s stigma can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, linguists began to recognize the distinction between logical and pragmatic negation. Secondly, the rise of descriptive grammar, which focuses on how language is actually used, challenged the prescriptive approach. Social factors also played a role. The double negative has long been a feature of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and other dialects. As societal attitudes towards these dialects shifted, the double negative gained wider acceptance.

Today, the double negative enjoys a complex status. It’s a common feature of informal speech and certain dialects, adding emphasis or a touch of informality (“She didn’t do nothing wrong”). However, in formal contexts, it’s still generally discouraged. This reflects a tension between the evolving nature of language and the desire for standardized usage.

The story of the double negative is a testament to the dynamism of grammar. It’s not a rigid set of rules, but a system that adapts to the needs of its speakers. The double negative’s journey from outcast to emphasis machine highlights how social factors, speaker intention, and the very nature of communication itself all influence the evolution of grammar. As language continues to evolve, the double negative will likely further solidify its place as a versatile tool in the English speaker’s arsenal.

Here’s an essay on the interesting evolution of the grammatical structure “they” as a singular pronoun:

The Singular “They”: An Evolving Pronoun

Pronoun Evolution

Pronouns, those small but mighty words that substitute for nouns, have undergone fascinating shifts throughout the history of the English language. One pronoun that has experienced a remarkable evolution is the use of “they” as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun. This usage, once considered ungrammatical, has now gained widespread acceptance and recognition as a valuable linguistic tool.

Traditional Usage

Traditionally, “they” was used exclusively as a plural pronoun, referring to multiple individuals or entities. For example, “They are coming to the party” clearly indicates more than one person. However, the lack of a conventional singular, gender-neutral pronoun in English created a gap in the language’s ability to refer to individuals without specifying their gender.

The Need for a Singular “They”

As society’s awareness and sensitivity to gender issues grew, the need for a pronoun that could refer to individuals without making assumptions about their gender identity became increasingly apparent. Authors, academics, and language users sought a solution to this linguistic challenge, and “they” emerged as a natural candidate.

Early Controversies

Initially, the use of “they” as a singular pronoun faced resistance and criticism from traditional grammarians and language purists. They argued that it violated the rules of subject-verb agreement and created ambiguity. However, proponents of the singular “they” countered that it had been used in this manner by respected writers for centuries, including Jane Austen and William Shakespeare.

Growing Acceptance

Despite initial resistance, the singular “they” gained momentum and acceptance as more people recognized its value in promoting inclusivity and respecting gender diversity. Major style guides, such as those published by the Associated Press and the American Psychological Association, began endorsing its use. Universities, corporations, and government agencies also adopted policies encouraging the use of the singular “they” in official communications.

Linguistic Evolution

The acceptance of the singular “they” highlights the dynamic nature of language and its ability to adapt to changing societal needs. While some may argue that it violates traditional grammar rules, language is not static; it evolves to reflect the values, experiences, and perspectives of its users. The singular “they” represents a linguistic evolution that promotes inclusivity, clarity, and respect for individual identities.

Conclusion

The journey of the singular “they” from a controversial usage to a widely accepted grammatical structure serves as a testament to the resilience and adaptability of language. As society continues to evolve, so too will language, reflecting and accommodating the diverse experiences and identities of its speakers. The singular “they” is not just a pronoun; it is a linguistic symbol of progress and inclusivity, reminding us that language is a living, breathing entity that grows and changes with the needs of its users.

Elaborate on the threshold of nomological density required to establish a grammatical structure as canonical.

The Threshold of Nomological Density in Establishing Canonical Grammar Structures

Nomological density is a concept that describes the process by which a grammatical usage becomes sufficiently widespread and accepted within a language community to be considered a rule. To understand how a grammatical structure achieves canonical status, it is essential to explore the various factors that contribute to its nomological density. This essay examines these factors, the thresholds involved, and the processes that establish a grammatical structure as canonical.

Defining Nomological Density

Nomological density refers to the point at which a grammatical usage becomes pervasive and entrenched within a language community, reaching a level of acceptance that allows it to be recognized as a standard rule. This concept involves multiple dimensions, including frequency of use, social acceptance, institutional endorsement, and functional utility.

Factors Contributing to Nomological Density
  1. Frequency of Use The most fundamental factor in achieving nomological density is the frequency of use. A grammatical structure must be used regularly by a significant portion of the language community. High frequency of use indicates that the structure is not merely a fleeting trend but has become an integral part of everyday communication.
  2. Social Acceptance Social acceptance involves the broader linguistic community’s recognition and adoption of a grammatical structure. This includes not only everyday speakers but also influential figures such as writers, journalists, and public speakers. When these influential users adopt a structure, it helps legitimize its use and encourages broader acceptance.
  3. Institutional Endorsement Institutional endorsement by authoritative bodies, such as language academies, educational institutions, and style guides, plays a crucial role in establishing a grammatical structure as canonical. These institutions often formalize the usage by including it in grammar textbooks, dictionaries, and official language policies.
  4. Functional Utility The functional utility of a grammatical structure refers to its ability to meet communicative needs effectively. Structures that enhance clarity, precision, or expressiveness are more likely to achieve nomological density. If a structure offers a clear advantage in communication, it is more likely to be adopted and accepted widely.
The Threshold of Nomological Density

Reaching the threshold of nomological density involves several interrelated stages:

  1. Emergence and Innovation A novel grammatical structure typically begins with emergence and innovation. This can occur through linguistic creativity, borrowing from other languages, or natural linguistic evolution. At this stage, the structure is often used by a small group of speakers or in specific contexts.
  2. Diffusion and Spread For a structure to achieve nomological density, it must undergo diffusion and spread. This involves the gradual adoption of the structure by more speakers and in more contexts. Social networks, media, and influential speakers play a critical role in this diffusion process.
  3. Critical Mass Achieving a critical mass of users is essential for reaching the threshold of nomological density. A grammatical structure must be used consistently by a significant portion of the language community. This critical mass creates a tipping point where the structure becomes recognizable and standard.
  4. Normalization Normalization involves the broader linguistic community accepting the structure as part of the standard language. At this stage, the structure is no longer seen as novel or incorrect but as a legitimate part of the language. Social acceptance and frequent use contribute to this normalization process.
  5. Institutionalization The final stage in reaching the threshold of nomological density is institutionalization. This occurs when authoritative bodies formally recognize and endorse the structure. Inclusion in grammar guides, educational curricula, and official language policies solidifies its status as canonical.
Examples of Nomological Density in Action

The evolution of the singular ‘they’ provides a clear example of nomological density in action. Initially, using “they” as a singular pronoun faced resistance and was considered improper. However, as its use increased in frequency, social acceptance grew, especially as it provided a practical solution for gender-neutral language. Institutional endorsement followed, with major style guides and dictionaries recognizing singular “they” as standard. This process reflects the multiple stages and factors involved in achieving nomological density.

Conclusion

The threshold of nomological density required to establish a grammatical structure as canonical involves a complex interplay of frequency of use, social acceptance, institutional endorsement, and functional utility. By examining these factors and their interactions, we can better understand how language evolves and how certain structures become recognized as standard rules. Nomological density provides a valuable framework for analyzing the dynamic processes that shape the grammar of a language, highlighting the importance of both grassroots linguistic innovation and top-down institutional recognition.

Unfortunately, there’s no single, objective threshold for nomological density to establish a grammatical structure as canonical (widely accepted and considered a rule). It’s a complex interplay of several factors:

  • Frequency and Distribution: How often is the structure used? Is it widespread across different regions, social groups, and registers (formal/informal)? A structure used frequently in informal speech might not reach canonicity as quickly as one used in both formal and informal settings.
  • Diffusion and Longevity: How long has the structure been around? A recent innovation needs more time to gain widespread acceptance compared to a structure that’s been around for decades.
  • Social Perception and Codification: Is the structure seen as “correct” by influential speakers, educators, or grammarians? Does it get codified in grammar guides or dictionaries? Formal recognition can solidify a structure’s place in the language.
  • Clarity and Utility: Does the structure add something valuable to the language? Does it enhance clarity, emphasis, or efficiency? Structures that serve a clear purpose are more likely to be adopted.

Here’s a breakdown of how these factors influence the “nomological density threshold”:

  • High Frequency & Distribution + Longstanding Use + Social Acceptance + Clear Utility: This combination creates a strong case for canonicity. The double negative, for example, satisfies most of these criteria.
  • High Frequency & Distribution + Short Use + No Social Acceptance: This might represent a trendy slang term that hasn’t yet reached mainstream acceptance. It could become canonical later, or fade away.
  • Low Frequency & Limited Distribution + Longstanding Use + Social Acceptance: This could be a regional dialect feature or a grammatical construction specific to a certain writing style. It might not be considered universally canonical, but holds weight within its specific context.

The Importance of Context:

The threshold for canonicity also depends on context. Informal settings might have a lower threshold, allowing for more experimentation and acceptance of novel structures. Formal settings, on the other hand, might have a higher threshold, prioritizing established rules for clarity and consistency.

The Evolving Nature of Nomological Density:

Nomological density is not static. A structure might reach canonicity, but lose its status over time. For example, the use of “whom” in accusative case (“For whom did you buy the gift?”) is becoming less frequent, potentially on its way to obsolescence.

In conclusion, the concept of nomological density helps us understand how grammar evolves. While there’s no single threshold, it’s a multifaceted concept that considers the frequency, distribution, social perception, and utility of a grammatical structure in its journey towards becoming a recognized and accepted part of the language.

Nomological Density and the Canonization of Grammatical Structures

The concept of nomological density, introduced earlier, plays a crucial role in determining when a novel grammatical structure transitions from a marginal usage to a fully accepted and canonical part of a language’s grammar. While the exact threshold for this transition is difficult to quantify, several factors contribute to establishing a structure’s nomological density and its eventual canonization.

Frequency of Usage

One of the primary determinants of nomological density is the frequency with which a novel structure is used across a language community. As a structure gains more widespread use, it becomes increasingly entrenched in the collective linguistic consciousness. However, mere frequency alone is not sufficient; the structure must also be used consistently and systematically.

Geographic Distribution

For a novel structure to achieve canonical status, it must transcend regional or dialectal boundaries. Widespread geographic distribution, spanning multiple regions or even countries where the language is spoken, contributes significantly to its nomological density. A structure that is confined to a specific locale or dialect may struggle to gain broader acceptance.

Prestige and Legitimacy

The prestige and perceived legitimacy of a novel structure’s users can influence its potential for canonization. If the structure is adopted by prestigious institutions, media outlets, or influential individuals, it gains credibility and is more likely to be accepted as a legitimate part of the language’s grammar.

Functional Necessity

Novel structures that fill a functional gap or address a specific communicative need within a language community are more likely to achieve nomological density. If a structure serves a purpose that existing grammatical constructions cannot fulfill effectively, it becomes a valuable addition to the language’s repertoire, increasing its chances of canonization.

Time and Generational Shifts

The process of canonization often takes time, spanning multiple generations of language users. As a novel structure persists across generations and becomes ingrained in the linguistic habits of successive generations, its nomological density increases, and it gains further acceptance as a canonical part of the language’s grammar.

While there is no definitive threshold for nomological density, a combination of widespread usage, geographic distribution, prestige, functional necessity, and generational persistence can contribute to a novel structure’s eventual canonization. It is a gradual process, with structures existing on a continuum, ranging from marginal novelties to fully accepted and codified parts of a language’s grammar.

Ultimately, the canonization of a grammatical structure is a testament to the dynamic and ever-evolving nature of language, reflecting the changing needs, values, and experiences of its speakers over time.

Quizzes

 #1: What is the concept of nomological density?

Answer:Nomological density describes the process by which a grammatical usage becomes sufficiently widespread and accepted within a language community to be considered a rule.

 #2: What historical influence contributed to the stigmatization of split infinitives in English?

Answer:Traditional grammarians, influenced by Latin grammar rules, deemed split infinitives incorrect because in Latin, infinitives are single words and cannot be split.

 #3: Name two factors that contribute to the frequency of use of a grammatical structure.

Answer:Innovation and borrowing from other languages.

 #4: What is an example of a split infinitive in English?

Answer:“To boldly go where no one has gone before.”

 #5: What role does social acceptance play in the process of achieving nomological density?

Answer:Social acceptance involves the broader linguistic community recognizing and adopting a grammatical structure, which includes influential figures such as writers, journalists, and public speakers.

 #6: What is the final stage in reaching the threshold of nomological density?

Answer:Institutionalization, where authoritative bodies formally recognize and endorse the structure.

 #7: Give an example of a grammatical rule that became obsolete due to language change.

Answer:Ending sentences with prepositions was once considered improper, but this rule is now often ignored in favor of more natural-sounding sentences.

 #8: How did Otto Jespersen contribute to the acceptance of split infinitives?

Answer:Otto Jespersen argued that split infinitives could enhance clarity and precision in writing, helping shift the perception of split infinitives from grammatical errors to legitimate stylistic choices.

 #9: What is an example of a grammatical structure that is now widely accepted despite being considered improper in the past?

Answer:The singular “they” used as a pronoun to refer to a person whose gender is unknown or to be inclusive of all genders.

 #10: What is the relationship between functional utility and nomological density?

Answer:Functional utility refers to a grammatical structure’s ability to meet communicative needs effectively. Structures that enhance clarity, precision, or expressiveness are more likely to achieve nomological density.

1: How can something novel eventually become a grammatical rule?

Answer:

Through frequent use, social learning, and potential codification by linguists or grammarians.


2: What can cause a grammatical rule to become obsolete?

Answer:

Competition from new structures, loss of utility, or larger language shifts.


3: What is the concept of “nomological density” used to describe?

Answer:

The frequency and acceptance of a grammatical structure within a language community.


4: Give an example of a once-improper grammatical structure that is now widely accepted.

Answer:

Split infinitives (e.g., “to boldly go”)


5: Why might “They/Them” be used as a singular pronoun?

Answer:

To refer to someone whose gender identity is unknown or non-binary.


6: In what context might using a double negative be discouraged?

Answer:

Formal writing, where clarity and adherence to traditional grammar are emphasized.


7: How does nomological density relate to the social acceptance of a grammatical structure?

Answer:

The higher the nomological density, the more widely accepted the structure becomes.


8: What are some factors that influence the threshold for nomological density required for canonicity?

Answer:

Frequency and distribution of the structure, longevity of use, social perception, and its clarity or utility.


9: Can the nomological density of a grammatical structure change over time?

Answer:

Yes, a structure might become less frequent and potentially fall out of favor (e.g., the use of “whom” in accusative case).


 #1: What is the process by which existing patterns in a language are extended to new contexts?

Answer: Analogical extension

 #2: Define the concept of “nomological density” in relation to the emergence of grammatical rules.

Answer: Nomological density refers to the degree to which a novel structure becomes widespread and entrenched in a language community, reaching a critical mass or “density” that enables it to transition from a novelty to a recognized rule of the language.

 #3: Provide an example of a grammar structure that was once considered improper but is now widely accepted.

Answer: Answers may include: splitting infinitives, ending a sentence with a preposition, using “they” as a singular pronoun, using double negatives, using “ain’t”, using “like” as a quotative, using “hopefully” as a sentence adverb, using “data” as a singular noun, using “literally” as an intensifier, or using “they” as a singular pronoun for a known individual.

 #4: What factor contributes to a novel structure’s potential for canonization?

Answer: The prestige and perceived legitimacy of the novel structure’s users can influence its potential for canonization.

 #5: Why are structures that fill a functional gap more likely to achieve nomological density?

Answer: Novel structures that fill a functional gap or address a specific communicative need within a language community are more likely to achieve nomological density because they serve a valuable purpose that existing grammatical constructions cannot fulfill effectively.

 #6: What is the process by which an existing structure is reinterpreted with a new meaning or function?

Answer: Reanalysis

 #7: What contributes to the obsolescence of established grammatical rules?

Answer: Established rules can become obsolete due to changing language needs, prestige factors (association with stigmatized or low-prestige varieties), or tendencies towards simplification.

 #8: How does geographic distribution contribute to a novel structure’s nomological density?

Answer: Widespread geographic distribution, spanning multiple regions or even countries where the language is spoken, contributes significantly to a novel structure’s nomological density.

 #9: What is the process by which structures are adopted from other languages through contact?

Answer: Borrowing

 #10: How does time and generational shifts contribute to the canonization of a novel structure?

Answer: The process of canonization often takes time, spanning multiple generations of language users. As a novel structure persists across generations and becomes ingrained in the linguistic habits of successive generations, its nomological density increases, and it gains further acceptance as a canonical part of the language’s grammar.

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Discussion Questions

  1. Nomological Density Concept:
    • How does the concept of nomological density help us understand language evolution?
  2. Split Infinitives History:
    • Why were split infinitives historically considered incorrect, and how did this perception change over time?
  3. Grammatical Innovations:
    • What are some examples of grammatical innovations in contemporary English that might be in the process of achieving nomological density?
  4. Language Authority:
    • How do authoritative bodies like language academies influence the acceptance of new grammatical structures?
  5. Frequency of Use:
    • Why is the frequency of use a critical factor in the acceptance of a grammatical structure?
  6. Social Acceptance:
    • How do influential speakers and writers contribute to the social acceptance of new grammatical structures?
  7. Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Linguistics:
    • How has the shift from prescriptive to descriptive linguistics impacted modern English grammar?
  8. Functional Utility:
    • Can you provide examples of grammatical structures that were adopted due to their functional utility?
  9. Double Negatives:
    • Why are double negatives accepted in some English dialects but still considered incorrect in standard English?
  10. Informal Contractions:
    • How has the acceptance of informal contractions like “gonna” and “wanna” changed over time?
  11. Singular ‘They’:
    • What social and linguistic factors contributed to the acceptance of the singular “they”?
  12. Grammatical Structure Obsolescence:
    • What factors contribute to the obsolescence of established grammatical rules?
  13. Institutionalization of Grammar:
    • How does the institutionalization of grammar rules through education and style guides affect language use?
  14. Cultural Impact on Language:
    • How do cultural changes influence the evolution of grammar rules?
  15. Language Evolution in Media:
    • How does media representation (e.g., movies, TV shows, and literature) impact the acceptance of new grammatical structures?

15 Discussion Prompts on Grammar Evolution and Nomological Density:

  1. Innovation vs. Error: How can we distinguish between a novel grammatical structure that might become a rule and a simple error? Is there a role for intuition in this process?
  2. Social Factors and Language Change: How do social movements and changes in demographics influence the evolution of grammar? Can you think of examples from history?
  3. The Role of Prescriptivism: Should there be a role for prescriptive grammar in a constantly evolving language? How can we balance clarity and adherence to rules with the natural flow of language?
  4. Nomological Density in Action: Think of a recent grammatical trend you’ve observed (e.g., “like” as a filler word). How would you describe its current nomological density?
  5. Standardization vs. Dialect: Nomological density can vary across dialects. How does this concept challenge the notion of a single “correct” form of a language?
  6. The Future of Grammar: Considering the concept of nomological density, how do you think grammar rules might evolve in the next 50 years?
  7. Technology and Language Change: How does technology like social media or instant messaging impact the nomological density of novel grammatical structures?
  8. The Double Negative Revisited: The double negative is a fascinating example of a structure that shifted from improper to accepted. Are there any other “improper” structures you think might follow a similar path?
  9. Clarity vs. Creativity: Can the pursuit of creative expression in language sometimes come at the expense of clarity? How can we strike a balance?
  10. Formal vs. Informal Settings: Should the concept of nomological density influence how we approach grammar in formal versus informal settings (e.g., emails vs. essays)?
  11. Globalized Language: In a more interconnected world, how might the concept of nomological density influence the creation of a globalized form of communication?
  12. The Role of Education: How can education systems adapt to acknowledge the evolving nature of language while still equipping students with strong communication skills?
  13. Language and Identity: Can the way we speak reflect our social identity or group affiliation? How does this connect to the concept of nomological density within specific communities?
  14. The Ethics of Language Change: Are there any ethical considerations when it comes to how languages evolve? Should we actively promote certain grammatical structures or simply observe the natural flow?
  15. Nomological Density and Other Languages: Is the concept of nomological density universally applicable to all languages, or are there cultural or historical factors that make some languages more resistant to change?

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the content covered:

  1. Can you think of any examples of novel grammatical structures that have recently emerged or gained popularity in English or other languages you’re familiar with?
  2. What factors do you think contribute most significantly to a novel structure reaching the threshold of nomological density necessary for canonization?
  3. How important is it for language authorities and institutions (e.g., dictionaries, style guides, academic bodies) to recognize and legitimize novel grammatical structures?
  4. Do you think the process of canonization is happening too slowly or too quickly for certain structures? Provide examples to support your view.
  5. Can you think of any examples of grammatical rules that have become obsolete or are on their way to becoming obsolete in English or other languages?
  6. How do you think the rise of digital communication and social media has influenced the emergence and spread of novel grammatical structures?
  7. Should language purists resist the canonization of novel structures, or should they embrace language evolution?
  8. Do you think there are any potential downsides or risks associated with the canonization of certain novel grammatical structures?
  9. How do you think the concept of nomological density applies to languages with more rigid grammatical traditions or language academies?
  10. Can you think of any examples of novel structures that have failed to achieve nomological density and widespread acceptance, despite their initial popularity?
  11. How might the canonization of novel grammatical structures differ across different registers or contexts (e.g., formal vs. informal, written vs. spoken)?
  12. Do you think the process of canonization is influenced by factors like age, socioeconomic status, or cultural backgrounds of language users?
  13. How might the canonization of novel structures impact language learning and teaching practices?
  14. Can you think of any examples of grammatical structures that were once considered improper but have since become canonical in a particular language or dialect?
  15. Do you think the concept of nomological density could be applied to other areas of language evolution, such as lexical or semantic changes?

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Grammar evolves. Describe the processes that transform a novel structure into a rule and a rule into obsolescence.
    1. Evolution of Grammar
      1. 1. Introduction of a Novel Structure
      2. 2. Spread and Adoption
      3. 3. Nomological Density
      4. 4. Institutionalization
      5. 5. Obsolescence
      6. 6. Mechanisms of Obsolescence
    2. Summary
  2. Provide an annotated list of 10 grammar structures in English that were once considered improper that are now widely accepted.
    1. Annotated List of Grammar Structures in English
      1. 1. Split Infinitives
      2. 2. Ending Sentences with Prepositions
      3. 3. Singular ‘They’
      4. 4. Starting Sentences with Conjunctions
      5. 5. Double Negatives
      6. 6. Using ‘Impact’ as a Verb
      7. 7. Sentence Fragments
      8. 8. Informal Contractions
      9. 9. Use of ‘Hopefully’ as a Sentence Adverb
      10. 10. Generalization of ‘Like’
    2. Summary
    3. 10 Once-Improper Grammar Structures Now Widely Accepted:
  3. Write a clear essay on a grammatical structure that experienced an interesting evolution.
    1. The Evolution of the Split Infinitive
      1. Historical Background
      2. The Prescriptive Backlash
      3. The Descriptive Shift
      4. Modern Acceptance
    2. Conclusion
    3. The Double Negative: From Outcast to Emphasis Machine
  4. Elaborate on the threshold of nomological density required to establish a grammatical structure as canonical.
    1. The Threshold of Nomological Density in Establishing Canonical Grammar Structures
      1. Defining Nomological Density
      2. Factors Contributing to Nomological Density
      3. The Threshold of Nomological Density
      4. Examples of Nomological Density in Action
      5. Conclusion
  5. Quizzes
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions
      1. 15 Discussion Prompts on Grammar Evolution and Nomological Density:

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. After his MA in Education, he took a 23-year break from reality in Tokyo. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT 4, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, his far more intelligent AI friends. The five of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Factual Disagreements vs Semantic Misunderstandings

    When what appears to be a factual disagreement is actually a semantic misunderstanding, confusion can arise. The precise definitions of terms are essential to avoid such misunderstandings. It fosters clear communication, avoids ambiguity, and promotes deeper understanding and… Read more

  • Charting Foucault

    Michel Foucault, a prominent philosopher, and his misaligned counterparts engage in profound intellectual clashes. Their divergent views on knowledge, power, punishment, and sexuality lead to rich and contentious debates. These tensions reflect deeper philosophical divides and the evolving… Read more

  • William James

    William James, an influential American philosopher and psychologist, made significant contributions to philosophy. His development of pragmatism and radical empiricism shifted philosophical inquiry from abstract theorization to practical outcomes and human experiences. James’ work influenced a broad range… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Foucault

    Foucault’s philosophy has had a profound influence on critical theory, social sciences, and political philosophy. His concepts of power/knowledge, disciplinary power, biopolitics, archaeology of knowledge, and genealogy are widely accepted and reshaped understandings of how power operates in… Read more

  • Leaving Room for Doubt

    This article discusses the importance of maintaining epistemic humility and avoiding full certainty, highlighting the benefits of an open-minded approach and the dangers of ideologies exploiting the human drive for certainty. It features notable quotes, explanations of the… Read more

  • Charting Marx

    Karl Marx’s groundbreaking theories on historical materialism, alienation, class struggle, and surplus value have sparked vigorous debate among philosophers like Max Weber, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Karl Popper. This clash of ideologies continues to shape contemporary thought, exploring fundamental… Read more

  • Knowledge & Cognition Asymmetry

    As knowledge complexity and abstraction grow, the human mind’s ability to keep pace is challenged. Strategies such as leveraging technology, enhancing education, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration can mitigate this asymmetry. Neuronal/silicon interfaces offer promising solutions, including advanced information… Read more

  • Charting Quine

    Willard Van Orman Quine’s groundbreaking philosophical ideas, such as his rejection of the analytic-synthetic distinction and advocacy for ontological relativity, provoked intense debates with contemporaries like Rudolf Carnap, A.J. Ayer, and C.I. Lewis. The tension arose due to… Read more

  • Dangers: Promissory Treasures

    Many ideologies promise rewards in an afterlife, shaping human behavior through various mechanisms. These include alleviating existential fear, establishing moral frameworks, deferring gratification, fostering social cohesion, exercising authority, and providing psychological comfort. When responding to an unsubstantiated claim… Read more

  • Michel Foucault

    Michel Foucault profoundly impacted philosophy by challenging traditional notions of power, knowledge, and social institutions. His concepts of power-knowledge, discourse analysis, and genealogical method have significantly influenced post-structuralism, critical theory, feminist theory, and post-colonial theory. Foucault’s work has… Read more

  • Can Words Constitute Violence?

    This article discusses the redefinition of violence to include words, the potential consequences of this shift, and the impact on society and free speech. It explores the dangers of equating words with violence and the implications for conflict… Read more

  • Do Rationalists Skew Neurodivergent?

    This article discusses the correlation between scientific and rational pursuits and neurodivergent traits and includes historical observations, contemporary research, societal and educational implications, and the correlation between childhood trauma/deprivation and neurodiversity. It also explores neurodivergent individuals’ reported general… Read more

  • Neurotypical & Neurodivergent Minds

    This article provides a critical analysis of a chart comparing neurotypical and neurodivergent traits, along with alternative visual and descriptive representations. It explores the dimensions of difference between neurotypical and neurodivergent minds, emphasizing the spectrum nature of neurodiversity.… Read more

  • The Motive Fallacy

    The deflection tactic in public discourse involves shifting the focus from the original topic or argument to untestable and unfalsifiable accusations of ignoble motivations. Use the motive fallacy to attack the person presenting the argument, rather than the… Read more

  • Karl Marx

    Karl Marx, a revolutionary 19th-century philosopher, economist, and political theorist, left an indelible mark on philosophy. He challenged prevailing ideologies with his materialist perspective and dialectical historical materialism. The causes behind his acclaim include the socio-economic upheaval of… Read more

  • Evolution & Rationality

    The article provides a comprehensive rebuttal to the arguments presented by Alvin Plantinga, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Nagel, and John Gray against the compatibility of evolution and rationality. It critically examines each philosopher’s premise and conclusion, offering logical counterarguments… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Quine

    This article delves into W.V.O. Quine’s significant philosophical contributions, focusing on five influential notions: the rejection of the analytic-synthetic distinction, ontological relativity, the indeterminacy of translation, holism (web of belief), and naturalized epistemology. Quine’s challenge to the analytic-synthetic… Read more

  • Charting Merleau-Ponty

    Maurice Merleau-Ponty, a leading 20th-century philosopher, challenged established traditions with his innovative views on perception, embodiment, and political philosophy. His tensions with Descartes, Kant, Fodor, and others underscored core disagreements on the body’s role in cognition, the intertwining… Read more

  • Maintaining Scientific Credibility

    Public policy-makers often face a dilemma: whether to speak the scientific truth and risk public panic, or to protect their reputation by distorting facts. This raises ethical and practical considerations, with examples including the Cuban Missile Crisis and… Read more

  • Non-Scientific Ways of Knowing

    The article explores whether there can be ways of knowing that do not require the scientific method yet remain coherent, rigorous, and testable. It examines coherence, defined as logical consistency within knowledge systems, rigor, involving thoroughness and precision,… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Berkeley

    This article explores the key philosophical notions of George Berkeley, focusing on his immaterialism, the principle “to be is to be perceived,” the role of God in sustaining reality, his critique of abstract ideas, and phenomenalism. Berkeley’s immaterialism… Read more

  • Willard Van Orman Quine

    Willard Van Orman Quine, a 20th-century American philosopher, profoundly impacted philosophy by challenging the analytic-synthetic distinction and advocating for naturalized epistemology. His 7 greatest contributions include rejecting the analytic-synthetic distinction, indeterminacy of translation, ontological relativity, naturalized epistemology, holism,… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version
Indicate your interests:

Links to Section Menus