Blog 1- Learning from Linguistic Variation

Surprised, Delighted, or Disappointed

The most surprising takeaway from this lecture was learning about the clear division between descriptive and prescriptive styles. I used to view style strictly as a set of rules—almost like grammar police defining “right” and “wrong.” Now I see that linguists often summarize how language is actually used, which I found both refreshing and humbling.

The "Coke" example deepened my understanding, and I realized I’ve had similar, if smaller, misunderstandings in my family. This made me reflect on how context and region shape our everyday language without us even realizing it. Overall, I learned that my initial belief in a single correct way to write was more limited than I thought.

A Personal Example of Variation

A personal example from my family brings this variation to life. My grandma used to ask me to bring her a Coca-Cola; however, we only had RC or Mr. Pibb in the refrigerator. I would reply that we didn't have Coca-Cola; we had RC or Mr. Pibb. She would simply say, "Child, what's the difference?" I never understood it. This small yet memorable moment illustrates how words can have different meanings within families.

Reflecting further, I recalled an example from my life that was mentioned during the lecture. My childhood was spent in Texas, but every summer I would visit California. Playing outside, I would tell my cousins to quit chunking rocks. They always laughed because, to them, what I said made no sense—they said throwing rocks instead.

That simple interaction revealed how much meaning and value words carry locally. What seemed normal and clear in Texas sounded strange in California. This experience, for me, clearly illustrates the lecture’s main point: language variation is not about right or wrong, but about local differences shaped by where you are from.

Influence on My Approach to Graded Work

Building on these realizations, this material has prompted me to reconsider my approach to peer review and other writing tasks. The key takeaway for me is to move beyond spotting errors and also examine how the writer’s choices fit the audience, situation, and purpose. Instead of simply identifying mistakes, I now look for the reasons behind each writer’s choices.

For example, when I evaluate a classmate’s draft, I will view their decisions as prescriptive (rule-following) or descriptive (a useful real-world variant). By shifting my focus, I can give feedback that is more reflective and less prescriptive. Another important point is to be aware of levels of language variation—such as word choices, sentence structure, or tone—so I can better distinguish differences.

Most Meaningful for Career Goals

Extending this idea to my career, the most meaningful part of the lecture was the segment on linguistic variation. The key takeaway was that even minor changes in language, such as using the word “y’all,” can significantly shape readers’ perceptions of professionalism, credibility, and expertise. For technical communicators, credibility is just as important as clarity. This lecture reinforced the importance of remaining flexible—adapting my writing to meet the style and expectations of each employer, client, or audience is crucial for advancing my career.

Closing Reflection

To close, this lecture shifted my understanding of style from a rule-based approach to a model of conscious choices. Key takeaways are: (1) style choices directly impact comprehension, efficiency, and how communication is perceived; (2) technical communicators must balance when to describe variations and when to prescribe clarity, professionalism, and credibility; and (3) flexibility in style is essential.

This echoes Richard Lederer’s point in ‘The Creativity of Human Language’: “practically every sentence that you speak and write during your lifetime has never been spoken or written before in human history” (Language Magazine, June 10, 2019).