Only the basic knowledge of grammar is needed for successful communication

The argument

The position turns on a distinction between knowing grammar and using a language. You do not need to be proficient in the formal grammar of a language in order to read and write it fluently, because the formal apparatus describes what competent speakers already do rather than instructing them how to do it. Take the distinction between a sentence, a phrase and a clause. Within grammar as a discipline these are technically different things, and the differences matter when the object of study is the structure of the language itself. For a person trying to communicate, the distinction is almost inconsequential: at the essence all three terms mean a group of words, and a writer who cannot say which label applies to a given string will nonetheless produce and understand it without difficulty. The technical vocabulary adds precision to descriptions of language; it does not add capability to users of it. What communication actually requires is much less than that. Most people get by on a basic grasp of sentence construction — enough to put words in an order others can follow — and in a great many exchanges they get by on less still, combining a few words with body language, tone and context to convey what they mean. That this works, routinely and across the whole population, is itself the evidence: if grammatical proficiency were necessary for successful communication, the vast majority of successful communication could not be happening. The conclusion is not that grammar is worthless but that beyond the basics it is a specialist interest rather than a general requirement. Further grammatical knowledge improves one's ability to describe and analyse language, not one's ability to use it. Since communication is what language is for, and basic knowledge suffices for communication, grammar in the fuller sense does not matter to most of the people using it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Basic sentences and body language does not make for efficient or thorough communication. Many details might not be expressed and thus affect the effectiveness of communication. With grammatical knowledge, more complex sentences can be formed and in spite of little errors, the general meaning can be conveyed more adequately. There’s a difference between bad grammar in a text message or an online forum as compared to a formal publication like a white paper or news article. I can accept your spelling and grammar issues when you punch out a quick response with your thumbs. When I’m trying to learn something, I expect the author’s position to be clear and easy to parse.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Successful communication is not one standard: what suffices for a text message does not suffice for a contract, a technical specification or a judgment, where precision of construction carries the meaning. [Rejecting P2] The example undercuts the point — sentence, phrase and clause are the categories used to teach the very construction the premise concedes is needed, so the distinction dismissed as inconsequential belongs to the basic knowledge being granted. [Rejecting C] "Getting by" describes a floor rather than settling whether grammar matters, and the sibling position that it matters on some occasions fits the premise better than the conclusion drawn from it.