English usage controversies

Some of the sources that consider some of the following examples incorrect consider the same examples to be acceptable in dialects other than Standard English or in an informal register; others consider certain constructions to be incorrect in any variety of English. On the other hand, many or all of the following examples are considered correct by some sources.

• Generic you – e.g., "Brushing your teeth is a good habit" as opposed to "Brushing one's teeth is a good habit"[1][2]
• Singular they – e.g., "Somebody left their sweater"[3] or "My friend left their sweater here"[4]
• Flat adverbs – e.g., "Drive safe" as opposed to "Drive safely"
• Split infinitives – e.g., "To boldly go where no man has gone before" as opposed to "To go boldly where no man has gone before"[5]
• Conjunction beginning a sentence – e.g., "But Dad said not to jump on the bed!"[6][7]
• Double genitive – e.g. "a friend of theirs" as opposed to "a friend of them" or "their friend"[8]
• Using "me" vs. "I" in the subject complement ("It's me" as opposed to "It's I" or "It is I") or other cases – e.g., "Me and Bob" vs. "Bob and I"[9]

It's me again.

• Using "I" vs. "me" in the oblique case, e.g., "He gave the ball to Bob and I" instead of "He gave the ball to Bob and me". This is often called a hypercorrection, since it is perceived as related to avoidance of the stigmatized incorrect use of the oblique form.[10] See Between you and I.
• The validity of aren't as a negative first-person singular contraction for to be in interrogative uses – e.g., "Aren't I the one you were talking about?"[11]
• The grammatical means for marking counterfactuality – e.g., "I wish I were/was an Oscar Mayer wiener" and "If the pandemic didn't happen/hadn't happened".
• Whether to use who or whom in various contexts
• The use of less or fewer with count nouns[12]
• Double negatives – e.g., "We don't need no education"[13]
• Certain double modals – e.g., "You might could do it" – not considered standard, but used for example in Southern American English[14]
• Double copula[15] – e.g., "What has to happen is, is that the money has to come from somewhere"[16]
• Preposition stranding – e.g., "You have nothing to be afraid of" (vs. "You have nothing of which to be afraid") – criticized by grammarians in the 1600s by analogy with Latin grammar and by some teachers since, though many have always accepted it as part of standard English[17]
• Distinction or lack of it between the past and past participle forms of the verb – e.g. "I should have went" and "I done that yesterday".
• Order of quoted punctuation marks, i.e., American style ("Many dreams were characterized as 'raw,' 'powerful,' and 'evocative'") vs. British style ('Many dreams were characterised as "raw", "powerful" and "evocative"'). Some American authorities (such as the APA and CMS) require the former, while others (such as the LSA) allow, prefer, or require the latter.
• Whether the verbs open/close to denote turn on/turn off can be used as English collocations (i.e. "Open the lights, please" for "Turn on the lights, please"). The expression is a metaphrase and is common among nonnative English speakers of Hebrew, Croatian, Filipino, French, Thai, Chinese, Greek, Italian descent, and also among French Canadians (or speakers of Quebec English), where "open" and "close" for "on" and "off" are used instead. This construction is grammatically correct but only out of context. The calquing and linguistic transfer make this construction foreign to other English speakers.[18]

Several proscriptions concern matters of writing style and clarity but not grammatical correctness:

• Dangling modifiers (including dangling participles) are often cited as potentially causing confusion.[19]
• Various style guides warn writers to avoid[20] the passive voice.
• Gender neutrality in English:
  • Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns – Replacing masculine pronouns where they are meant to refer to a person of either gender with both masculine and feminine pronouns, alternative phrasing, the singular they[21] or newly invented words like "hir" and "ze"
  • Terms for humans in general – Replacing nouns like "mankind" with "humankind"
  • Gender marking in job titles – Replacing nouns like "chairman" and "manpower" with alternatives like "chairperson" and "staffing levels"
  • Use of Ms. for equality with Mr., as opposed to Miss and Mrs., which specify whether the woman is married; there are no similar titles for men that specify whether the man is married.

For an alphabetical list of disputes concerning a single word or phrase, see List of English words with disputed usage.

The following circumstances may feature in disputes:

It is often said that the difference between prescriptivist and descriptivist approaches is that the former prescribes how English should be spoken and written and the latter describes how English is spoken and written, but this is an oversimplification.[25] Prescriptivist works may contain claims about the incorrectness of various common English constructions, but they also deal with topics other than grammar, such as style.[25] Prescriptivists and descriptivists differ in that, when presented with evidence that purported rules disagree with most native speakers' actual usage, the prescriptivist may declare that those speakers are wrong, whereas the descriptivist will assume that the usage of the overwhelming majority of native speakers defines the language, and that the prescriptivist has an idiosyncratic view of correct usage.[25] Particularly in older prescriptivist works, recommendations may be based on personal taste, confusion between informality and ungrammaticality,[25] or arguments related to other languages, such as Latin.[25]

• Barbarism (linguistics)
• List of dialects of English

• Robert Lane Greene (2011). You Are What You Speak: Grammar Grouches, Language Laws, and the Politics of Identity. Delacorte Press. ISBN 978-0553807875.
• Rebecca Gowers (2018). Horrible Words: A Guide to the Misuse of English. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0141978970.