Sometimes, students get upset over variations in grammar and spelling. For example, they might demand to know why one native speaker writes, “he didn’t used to swim” and another, “he didn’t use to swim.”

There’s actually no right answer to questions like this. After all, reputable writers go both ways. However, some students want a clear “yes” or “no” and will feel cheated unless given a rule. While their curiosity is respectable, this “I. Must. Find. Rule” mentality isn’t the best approach to learning a language.

We'll want to introduce them to a different (and more helpful) approach.

Get Used to Exceptions and Variations.

Whether we’re teaching students grammar, spelling, or pronunciation, we’re bound to encounter exceptions. For example, we generally add an -s to words to make them plural (e.g. “cats” and “tables”). But, if the word ends in S, Z, SH, or CH sounds, we add -es:

• “Boxes“ (box ends with an S sound)
• “Brushes“ (brush ends with a SH sound)
• “Beaches“ (beach ends with a CH sound)

Then, there are words that don’t need an -s to be plural (e.g. “sheep”, “fish”, and “advice”) and words that have irregular plural forms (“children”, “mice”, and “feet“), on top of many other exceptions (like how “knife” becomes “knives.”)

And if that’s not enough, people from different countries also follow different rules. For example, the British say “my family are coming” (family = plural), whereas Americans say, “my family is coming” (family = singular).

As we can see, due to all these exceptions and variations, a quest for a “rule to end all rules” is doomed to fail. After all, language is a product of nature, and nature is complicated.

Nature is Complicated.

In biology class, you’ve probably learned that animals can be classified into different categories: mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, insects, etc.

However, rather than thinking of these as rigid categories, it’s better to realize that there’s variation within each and every one of them. Every category includes animals that are typical and animals that are less so.

Let’s look at some definitions of “bird”:

• “animal distinguished by the possession of feathers, wings, a beak, and typically by being able to fly” (Oxford)
• “a creature with feathers and wings, usually able to fly” (Cambridge)

Did you notice the words “typically” and “usually”? Although these words make the definitions less precise, they provide useful information about a characteristic that most birds have: their ability to fly.

So rather than expecting animal categories to be 100% clear-cut, it can be useful to think of animals as “typical” and “less typical.”

Back to Language!

Similarly, rather than getting frustrated about how language isn’t as logical as math, our students can try to think of language like biology. For example, when it comes to nouns, there are typical nouns (that pluralize with -s and -es) and less typical nouns:

In other words, rather than thinking of language as a set of rules with exceptions, it’s better to realize that, like biology, language is a product of the natural world, which has “typical” and “less typical” characteristics.

Finally, language is constantly changing. Sometimes these changes make language simpler. An example of this is the fact that many words that came from Latin (e.g. “millennium,” “cactus”) are increasingly being pluralized in the typical English way (e.g. “millenniums,” “cactuses” instead of “millennia,” “cacti”).

And sometimes these changes make language more complicated. For example, recently, it has become common to use a noun after the word “because” in informal speech: “grammar rules have lots of exceptions, because ... language!”

👋 That’s it for now!

So, next time we meet a student who insists that there must be “right” and “wrong” answer to everything, we can introduce them to this different approach to language.

Before searching for a rule, they can try searching for real-world usage examples on Google. For example, if searches for both “he didn’t used to” and “he didn’t use to” yield millions of results, then it’s safe to say that both are probably acceptable in everyday communication.

There’s no right or wrong answer. After all, language is complicated ... just like the natural world!