Language Educators Assemble » Policies and Economics » Confronting “Grammar Nazis”: 5 Reasons why LANGUAGE POLICING Backfires

Confronting “Grammar Nazis”: 5 Reasons why LANGUAGE POLICING Backfires

Is LANGUAGE POLICING effective in achieving its goals? Discover five reasons why it can backfire in this article.

Language Policing

A true story of language surveillance in education

Imagine yourself as a multilingual student in your local public school. Your community may be linguistically diverse, but your school is determined to establish itself as a gateway to the global stage for its students. As such, it takes the teaching of English language very seriously – and with good intentions. To accomplish this, the school implements several critical measures: installation of CCTV to monitor the use of language, appointment of peers (aka your fellow schoolmates) as “language police” and use of punitive measures (e.g., public shaming during assemblies) to discourage the use of local languages. How would this make you feel?

surveillance from everywhere
Image generated by Art Smart / Surveillance that comes from every corner

This is not an urban fable that I fabricated to prove my point. It is a well-documented case of LANGUAGE POLICING in an educational setting within Nepal by Phyak (2023). These are two Nepali schools that strives to drive strict English-medium instruction (EMI) through institutional disciplinary power. Phyak argues that such a discriminatory approach ends up “affecting the personal, affective, and educational aspects of students’ lives”.

Some of us may perceive this case to be an extreme anomaly. However, LANGUAGE POLICING is actually quite commonly observed in many contexts (e.g., social media, families). The crux is whether it is effective in achieving its goals, and whether the benefits (if any) merit the costs that come with it. In this article, I argue how it is hardly beneficial, and the costs involved are way too much.

Get real-time updates and BE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS by joining LEA’s online communities on your favourite platforms! Connect with like-minded language educators and get inspired for your next language lesson.

Understanding what LANGUAGE POLICING is

To understand this term, perhaps a good entry point is to understand what the concept of “POLICING” entails. As the word suggests, it is the work that police do – law enforcement and order maintenance (Rawling, 1995). The primary objectives are to deter and penalise criminal behaviours while ensuring justice is served within society.

Applied linguists have since migrated this concept in a metaphorical sense to then characterise the practices and mechanisms employed by various actors—such as institutions, teachers, and individuals—to regulate, control, and enforce normative language use within specific contexts (Cushing et al., 2024; Phyak, 2015). These practices and mechanisms generally reflect the language ideologies of actors/institutions in position of power. In “LANGUAGE POLICING”, certain forms or varieties (usually of non-standard vernaculars) are stigmatised to make space for preferred standardised or international languages. In a sense, we can say that LANGUAGE POLICING is a form of Language Management.

“These mechanisms occur within education systems characterised by struggles related to power imbalances, standards and performativity, with the policing metaphor playing out in terms of rules, laws, crimes and punishments.”

Cushing et al., 2024

LANGUAGE POLICING is not CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK.

teacher giving feedback
Photo from Rawpixel / A coordinated feedback session in class

Some of us may conflate LANGUAGE POLICING with CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK, as both appear to involve identifying and ‘correcting’ our learners’ ‘errors’. This confusion is usually due to a misunderstanding of what corrective feedback truly is — a subject that warrants its own detailed discussion. Nonetheless, I would attempt to differentiate these two concepts briefly for clarity.

First, CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK is usually defined within a pedagogical context. One commonly adopted definition is that it specifically refers to correctional guidance that we give our learners to rectify the linguistic errors made in their spoken or written output (Li, 2010; Sheen & Ellis, 2011). It may be a phrase that is expressed inaccurately or a register that is not fit for the context. Irrespective of the specific error(s), the primary intent is to help our learners improve their linguistic abilities by providing constructive instruction. In contrast, LANGUAGE POLICING typically stems from a desire by authorities to enforce preferred language norms, often disregarding individual backgrounds or progress and the legitimacy of their current abilities (Cushing, 2019). “Inappropriateness” or “correctness” are directly associated with the varieties/forms and the speakers who produced them – the critique is less concerned with learning.

Second, the approach we use in CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK is generally supportive and encourages dialogue – if done appropriately. We may provide examples, explanations, or suggestions (e.g., alternative expressions) to help our learners master ways of speaking or writing that are closer to the standardised norms. Conversely, LANGUAGE POLICING involves monitoring and correcting language use in a much more prescriptive manner, often without engaging our learners in a conversation about their choices (Amir & Musk, 2013; Cushing, 2019; Phyak, 2024). This can manifest as a direct blatant criticism or strict exclusion of non-standard dialects / language varieties, or simply ways of language use.

Last, CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK is generally focused on the target language and does not imply any comparisons with other languages/varieties – the goal is to enable learners to develop the capacity to use the language in accordance with target norms. LANGUAGE POLICING, however, actively imposes a hierarchy of languages or language norms (Cushing et al., 2024; Phyak, 2015; Yazan, 2015). In this system, authorities usually seek to suppress competing languages/varieties to accommodate or promote the preferred language(s) or language practices. Such an interplay of power relations has extended beyond the confines of our language classrooms and is beyond the scope of CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK.

By examining the definition of LANGUAGE POLICING (and its difference with CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK), we probably start to see the challenges LANGUAGE POLICING pose to language learning. Moving forward, I shall further illustrate how it is not only counterproductive but may also undermine the intended goals of those who enforce it.

Join our mailing list!

Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!

Post Subscription Box

1. LANGUAGE POLICING stigmatises and alienates multilingual learners.

The stigma and alienation resulting from LANGUAGE POLICING can be particularly damaging for multilingual learners who are already navigating complex linguistic and cultural landscapes. These learners are already attempting to reconcile their personal linguistic and cultural practices with the target norms, which demands an understanding of the specific nuances, customs, and values of the target culture. Inevitably, non-target languages or language practices may emerge periodically when learners are engaged in sense-making.

By trying to suppress such natural processes of learning and adaptation, LANGUAGE POLICING ironically hinders the development of capacity to perform in the target language or norms. I’m sure we can relate to the case studies raised at the start of the article: the Nepali students were coerced to short-circuit their learning to leap into the target norms. The result is stigmatisation and social exclusion without the learning – worst-case scenario (i.e., costs without benefits).  

To be clear, I’m not aiming to bash systems which aim to develop proficiency in certain languages for broader societal communication. There are larger forces at work here, making it impractical to contest against them as diverse communities also require means of effective communication – which a common language facilitates more efficiently. Accepting diversity does not necessarily mean rejecting societal language(s) or international lingua franca; rather, it means the recognition and acceptance of varying language practices even when diverse communities aim to negotiate meaning in different shared tongues – something which LANGUAGE POLICING curtails.

2. LANGUAGE POLICING leads to increased discursive violence and excessive self-censorship.

Discursive violence refers to the harm caused through language and communication practices that marginalise, silence, or misrepresent individuals or groups (Holling, 2019). This concept involves the strategic deployment of discourse to maintain hegemonic power structures by normalising inequality, perpetuating stereotypes, and denying the validity of lived experiences of minority groups.

In the context of LANGUAGE POLICING, this involves the hostile enforcement of language norms by delegitimising forms and practices that deviate from the preferred ones. Practices of hostile enforcement can include fierce criticisms and public shaming – we’ve seen that in the Nepali case studies. Over time, LANGUAGE POLICING can normalise discriminatory practices within institutions to explicitly frame non-standard varieties or forms as “incorrect” or “inappropriate” (Cushing, 2019; Cushing & Snell, 2023; Cushing et al., 2024; Phyak, 2023, 2024).

The sustained fear of being subjected to discursive violence compel individuals to engage in excessive self-censorship, where they are forced to abandon their familiar language practices altogether most of the time. This internalised anxiety to conform to dominant language norms stifles authentic expression and risks disconnecting individuals from their cultural heritage (Phyak, 2023).

3. LANGUAGE POLICING exerts a negative impact on learning and participation.

demotivated student
Photo from Adobe Stock / Demotivated student at the receiving end of excessive policing

Unsurprisingly, with heightened anxiety and self-censorship, our learners may become hesitant in projecting their natural selves in learning. For instance, Amir and Musk (2013) highlight how teachers in some foreign language classrooms in Sweden enforced strict language policies (e.g., point deduction system) that discourage students from using their first languages, leading to a culture of silence and disengagement. This negatively affected students’ confidence and willingness to contribute to classroom discussion, ultimately hindering their learning experience.

In England, Cushing et al. (2024) examine the mechanisms of LANGUAGE POLICING in both mainstream and complementary schools in England. Similarly, linguistic prescriptivism was very much espoused to uphold a “standard version” of English over all other varieties to emphasise it as the only route to academic success. In the process, other varieties were relegated to “merely dialects” that are unworthy of further study. These led to the formation of negative self-images of learners with non-standard varieties as mother tongues, inadvertently limiting the deployment of their full linguistic resources and thereby hindering their self-expression and full participation in the educational process.

4. LANGUAGE POLICING exacerbates social inequality.

Again, I reiterate that authorities and actors of LANGUAGE POLICING aren’t necessarily inherently malicious in making things difficult for our learners who’re adversely affected by the policing actions. Even the Nepali schools in the Phyak’s case studies (2023) were driven by the belief that mastering English opens doors to international prospects, which then advances social mobility for the students. What these authorities and actors may not have realised is that the approach (i.e., LANGUAGE POLICING) could ironically widen social inequality.

Remember that LANGUAGE POLICING reinforces a hierarchical relationship between languages/varieties/forms? There is always a preferred one that stays at the top while all others are viewed with disdain. When this is upheld, even the speakers of non-preferred languages/varieties/forms are also “dehumanised”. Phyak (2024) raises the concept of a form of “epistemic injustice”, such that individuals are systematically disadvantaged in their capacity as knowers due to their language use. In his study, observed students who do not speak English were characterised by authorities as “weak” and given a “deflated level of credibility” as knowers – when in fact it was typically learners with lower socioeconomic status that faced obstacles in achieving English proficiency due to limited access to high-quality English learning materials. Such epistemic downgrading not only affects students’ self-esteem but also further constrains their opportunities for academic success, thus perpetuating pernicious cycles of social inequality.

I’ve also argued earlier how LANGUAGE POLICING impedes learning and participation for our learners who belong to the marginalised group. Extending this analysis over a prolonged timeframe, as demonstrated in various studies (Cushing, 2019; Cushing et al., 2024; Phyak, 2023, 2024), reveals an increasing disparity for marginalised learners compared to their more privileged counterparts who have an initial advantage in utilising the target language. When the target language also serves as the medium of instruction, it becomes evident how such learners face additional disadvantages, perpetuating pre-existing social inequalities.

5. LANGUAGE POLICING provokes resistance and backlash against its intended goals.

resistance and protest
Photo from Rawpixel / Different types of resistance can happen after prolonged suppression

Let’s imagine ourselves as the marginalised learners facing suppression through LANGUAGE POLICING over a long period of time. How possibly will we respond with a fight or flight response? While I wouldn’t assume that I’d have the courage to challenge the authorities overtly, I’d probably engage in my own passive-aggressive form of contestation.

These kinds of sentiments aren’t unique. Think about the term “Grammar Nazi”, which is deduced to have originated in the 1990s as a derogratory label used to describe netizens who engage excessively in online LANGUAGE POLICING (Švelch & Sherman, 2017). These language police are typically characterised as overly critical and even pedantic (or overly concerned with minor details). Such a label may have been created by individuals who believe they were unjustly “criminalised” by those who police language. Don’t be surprised if our learners call us variants of “Grammar Nazi” if we engage in LANGUAGE POLICING ourselves – though this is regarded a mild form of resistance or backlash.

Stronger forms can materialise as overt defiance within schools or classrooms – refusing to engage in learning that develops proficiency in the target language. With the pervasiveness of social media, resistance can also take the forms of online movement. For example, the study by Guo et al. (2020) which illustrates how Hong Kong residents counter LANGUAGE POLICING with their own policing moves to uphold the use of traditional chinese characters against the state-imposed use of simplified characters. Another study by Selvi (2020) also highlights similar approach in Turkey, where grassroot activists leverage social media platforms to resist English by – ironically – policing language use. While the two studies relate more to the larger societal setting, let’s not preclude the possibility that they can manifest in educational contexts.

Join our mailing list!

Receive insights and EXCLUSIVE resources on language education in a monthly newsletter, fresh into your inbox. No Fees, No Spam, so No Worries!

Post Subscription Box

Alternatives to LANGUAGE POLICING

I’ve hitherto presented the detriments of LANGUAGE POLICING in the context of language education. Premised on good intentions to empower our learners with capabilities in target language(s) of concern, my main argument lies in that the approach is fundamentally flawed since it leads to whole slate of undesirable unintended consequences. From an epistemological standpoint, the belief that banning and degrading other languages will inherently improve proficiency in the desired language(s) is a misconception. This then begs the question: should we then allow fluid non-constrained use of forms and practices?

To me, that is an empirical question with pedagogical implications that is still tackled in translanguaging studies. For now, the verdict is inconclusive, and we can only further experiment within our own contexts. If so, what then are the alternatives?

One quick suggestion is to reframe our mindsets and cultivate our skills to be more proficient in providing CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK. The key is to encourage conversations and dialogues for learning to take place, instead of a top-down non-negotiable policy implementation with little pedagogical consideration that makes people infuriated.

Another is to consider the role of Language Awareness and Multilingual Awareness in the curriculum. Accompanied with a culturally responsive pedagogy, we can help our learners understanding the social and cultural implications of language use while questioning and challenging language norms and ideologies within a safe space. Such engagement of metalinguistic discourses has potential to empower our learners to become discerning language users, adeptly fulfilling the curriculum’s intended role for the target language.

Making a difference in language education, one sip at a time. Support my work with a coffee?

buy me a coffee

References

Amir, A., & Musk, N. (2013). Language policing: micro-level language policy-in-process in the foreign language classroom. Classroom Discourse, 4(2), 151-167.

Cushing, I. (2019). The policy and policing of language in schools. Language in Society, 49(3), 425-450.

Cushing, I., & Snell, J. (2022). The (white) ears of Ofsted: A raciolinguistic perspective on the listening practices of the schools inspectorate. Language in Society, 52(3), 363-386.

Cushing, I., Georgiou, A., & Karatsareas, P. (2024). Where two worlds meet: language policing in mainstream and complementary schools in England. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 27(9), 1182-1198.

Guo, Q., Gao, X. (Andy), Shao, Q., & Zhu, S. (2020). Identity performance and language policing in Hong Kong’s media. Discourse, Context & Media, 38, 100444.

Hazel, S. (2015). Identities at odds: embedded and implicit language policing in the internationalized workplace. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), 141-160.

Heuman, A. (2022). Trivializing language correctness in an online metalinguistic debate. Language & Communication, 82, 52-63.

Holling, M. A. (2019). Rhetorical contours of violent frames and the production of discursive violence. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 36(3), 249-271.

Kelly-Holmes, H., Moriarty, M., & Pietikäinen, S. (2009). Convergence and divergence in Basque, Irish and Sámi media language policing. Language Policy, 8(3), 227-242.

Li, S. (2010). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.

Phyak, P. (2015). (En)Countering language ideologies: language policing in the ideospace of Facebook. Language Policy, 14(4), 377-395.

Phyak, P. (2023). Producing the disciplined English-speaking subjects: Language policing, development ideology, and English medium of instruction policy. Language in Society, 53(2), 321-343.

Phyak, P. (2024). “Looking like a boarding school student”: the construction of unequal personhood in language policy in education. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2024(285), 93-110.

Rawlings, P. (1995). The idea of policing: A history. Policing and Society, 5(2), 129-149.

Selvi, A. F. (2020). Resisting English medium instruction through digital grassroots activism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(2), 81-97.

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective Feedback in Language Teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning Volume II (pp. 593-610). Routledge.

Sherman, T., & Švelch, J. (2015). “Grammar Nazis never sleep”: Facebook humor and the management of standard written language. Language Policy, 14(4), 315-334.

Švelch, J., & Sherman, T. (2018). “I see your garbage”: Participatory practices and literacy privilege on “Grammar Nazi” Facebook pages in different sociolinguistic contexts. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2391-2410.

Yazan, B. (2015). Adhering to the language roots: Ottoman Turkish campaigns on Facebook. Language Policy, 14, 335-355.