How many of the lessons you learned in English class do you remember? Many people who grow up speaking English learn to do so “by ear” — picking up speech patterns and flow naturally. As such, native English speakers bend the rules of grammar every day. Although these rules are taught in classrooms and enforced by style guides, everyday English speaker often follow a different set of standards, with a focus on clarity, emphasis, and natural flow. While some may label these modifications as “mistakes,” they actually serve a purpose in casual conversation, making them valuable for non-native English speakers to learn and understand.
Dangling modifiers are created when the subject being described is not explicitly stated in the sentence. Although this is technically a grammatical error, native English speakers use dangling modifiers all the time. For example, consider this sentence: “While eating dinner, the phone rang.” Obviously, the phone was not eating dinner, so this sentence structure might puzzle someone who learned English in a classroom or with a textbook. To native English speakers, the intention is clear: The phone rang while someone was eating dinner.
Another example: “Having worked hard all semester, the final exam was a relief.” Who worked hard all semester? The intended subject is the unnamed student, not the exam. While native English speakers likely grasp the intended meaning, those new to English might find these constructions confusing.
To correct these dangling modifiers, we could rephrase the examples by rearranging the words or adding subjects:
The phone rang while we were eating dinner.
After I worked hard all semester, the final exam was a relief.
Teachers and style guides alike warn against overusing adverbs. As the MLA Style Center notes, “intensive” adverbs — “very,” “truly,” “really,” “actually,” and “extremely” — in particular are frowned upon. Nonetheless, we use them in daily conversation. In fact, the latter three adverbs are among the 3,000 most common English words.
Native speakers, in particular, favor intensive adverbs over flowery ones. For instance, saying, “Can you turn the music down? It’s really loud,” sounds natural, while “It’s thunderous” might feel awkward or pretentious. Similarly, telling a friend you’re “very excited” for their party sounds more sincere than saying you’re “exhilarated” or “overjoyed.” While intensive adverbs may not always fit formal writing, they remain a staple of everyday speech.
Sentence fragments — incomplete sentences missing a subject or verb — are often listed as a supreme slipup among grammar mistakes. But in modern communication, from emails to advertisements, sentence fragments are effective. Many corporate slogans, for example, are sentence fragments valued for their brevity and impact. Wheaties and BMW drop off the verb with their respective trademark taglines, “Breakfast of champions” and “The ultimate driving machine.” Other companies use an implied subject, such as Nike’s “Just do it,” where the implied subject is “you.”
Fragments also occur in everyday expressions: “Be there soon.” “Not my problem.” “No idea.” The “incorrect” abruptness of these phrases is what makes them work. One-word sentence fragments — “Absolutely,” “Nope,” and “Maybe” — are commonplace in everyday chatter because they’re simple and convey meaning instantly. Fragments are also effective as an afterthought: “I loved that movie. A little long, though.”
Fragments are perhaps most prevalent in commands and instructions: “No running.” “Inside voices.” “Exit here.” We avoid using complete sentences in these contexts to prioritize simplicity and readability.
Combatants of the figurative usage of “literally” complain of its incorrect placement and overuse. It is, after all, one of the most common English words. Its traditional definition means “in a literal sense” or “a completely accurate way” — so why do so many native English speakers use it to convey the opposite?
According to Merriam-Webster, the figurative definition of “literally” — “used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible” — is recognized as a valid usage due to its popularity. Native speakers often use it as hyperbole for emphasis, as in, “It’s literally freezing in here!” Even if the temperature isn’t freezing, this exaggeration effectively communicates just how cold it feels.
Some grammar purists might bewail this secondary usage of literally, but it’s hardly new. The meaning of “virtually; in effect” can be found in the writings of some of the most well-respected writers of the 19th and 20th centuries, including Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, and James Joyce.
An English grammar textbook might tell you that starting a sentence with a coordinating conjunction — “for,” “and,” “nor” “but,” “or,” “yet,” and “so” (the mnemonic FANBOYS) — is a no-no. A topic of much debate, this “rule” persists in many style guides. But as an Oxford Dictionaries blog (quoted by MLA — backed up by double grammar experts!) points out, it’s merely a stylistic preference, not a hard-and-fast rule.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction has benefits, from adding a touch of drama to creating urgency. Examples include dramatic openings like “And so it begins…” or conversational phrases such as “So, now what?”
Historical and literary figures have long embraced this use of conjunctions to kick off their writing. Leo Tolstoy wrote, “We can know only that we know nothing. And that is the highest degree of human wisdom.” During his inaugural address, John F. Kennedy famously said, “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
So, while the rule book has its place, native English speakers prove every day that sometimes, the most powerful — and practical — choice is to break the rules.
More from our network
Word Smarts is part of Optimism, which publishes content that uplifts, informs, and inspires.
