In this section, we will be introducing something that lies at the roots of language phenomena: linguistic insecurity. We will continue this discussion in the next part.

By this point, it is very clear that society is deeply tied to language. More specifically, a person's language can reflect his or her socioeconomic status and role within a given society's hierarchy of classes.

Linguists split grammar into two types: descriptive grammar and prescriptive grammar. The first type, descriptive, is exactly what it sounds like. It describes how a language works in the mind and works to put basic tacit knowledge about a language into formal words. It's like a keen observation of any given language. Prescriptive grammar, however, brings a linguistic attitude shift. It tells you how you ought to speak, and ideas stemming from prescriptive grammar are mostly likely based on relatively small sets of "grammar rules" set by whoever published them first. Rules of grammar generally come from two place: either someone made them up, or they represent vestiges from earlier stages of that language.

Take English, for example. From the modern English perspective, we can't understand words that are spoken in Old English; if you've ever watched a video of Shakespearean actors recite their lines in Shakespeare's English, you know that most of the words sound like gibberish. Even though we can't understand Old English, we can understand each other as members of a common language community. Language evolves, as it did with English, and it cleans up after itself.

If language changes constantly and grammar can be fluid, why don't we get rid of all the "textbook" grammar rules today? Why don't we make innovative, new strides in English? The truth is this: we do.... except people think poorly of it. The slang nowadays, such as "lol" or "ily" is new grammar, whether we realize it or not; there are unspoken rules pertaining to when a slang word can or cannot be used. We've made the noun "darty," and we've even turned it into the verb "dartying."

So much of slang is looked down upon that linguists fear the thought of breaking more traditional grammar rules. Yes, a linguist could start not using the right conjugations in their research papers, but wouldn't the general public think that the linguist was just making mistakes rather than being innovative?

The 1700s brought the printing press and new ideas, but more importantly, it brought greater social mobility than had ever been seen before. This led to the stigmatization of lower classes, not only in physical aspects, but linguistic features as well. Sometimes, the impoverished or enslaved classes would have distinct ways of speaking, and they would be immediately recognizable as a lower socioeconomic status. People who moved up the social ladder would "fix" their language as they went; people who wanted to move up tried to change their language habits as a starting point.

This linguistic insecurity would bring rise to linguistic patterns across ethnic or socioeconomic groups, and it would lead to one of the most well known linguistic studies from Willian Labov.

Stay tuned for Part 7 for a continuation of this discussion!