“I see your garbage”: Participatory practices and literacy privilege on “Grammar Nazi” Facebook pages in different sociolinguistic contexts

Abstract

In contemporary online culture, Grammar Nazi (GN) is a derogatory term used to label individuals who practice excessive language policing but has also been ironically appropriated by groups of users who engage in evaluation of other people’s grammar for entertainment purposes. In this article, we combine approaches from media studies and sociolinguistics to analyze the adoption of the phenomenon by two GN Facebook pages in two languages: English and Czech. Our mixed-method analysis shows that while both pages can be read as examples of media participation, they also exemplify their users’ “literacy privilege” associated with standard language ideology. However, there are differences in the practices associated with the label, reflecting the specific sociolinguistic contexts. While Czech GNs act as “guardians” of the public space, collecting and displaying localized orthographic errors for collective dissection, the English page is more dedicated to sharing jokes and puns typical of international online culture.

Keywords

Facebook Grammar Nazi language management language online language policing literacy online humor online meme social media standard language ideology

Introduction

The widespread adoption of the Internet has allowed for an unprecedented number of written interactions among users with varying knowledge of and approaches to standard language varieties (Baron, 2002, 2008). It gave rise to online-specific word forms, communication conventions, and language varieties, such as emoticons or leetspeak (Herring, 2012) and collapsed some of the barriers between sociolinguistic groups—a single discussion thread can contain contributions by an English PhD, a high school dropout, and non-native speakers.

However, these very technologies allow for other members of the public to criticize the uses of language that they consider wrong. This criticism has been associated with the term “Grammar Nazi” (GN), usually reserved for someone who scolds other people for their language use. Most probably originating in English-speaking Internet discussion forums in the 1990s, this term has been heavily utilized in online media settings and spread into various language environments worldwide. Along the way, it has become entangled in a complex web of (often contradictory) meanings.

On one hand, GN may be meant as an insult, a derogatory term used to address those who engage in excessive language policing—a practice that in fact predates online communication (Schaffer, 2010). On the other hand, there are individuals and online communities who willingly identify with the GN label and proudly carry its banner, ironically appropriating this controversial label to signify something positive. The Grammar Nazi Party (GNP) Facebook page, for instance, sets out to “overwrite the bad reputation of Grammar Nazis everywhere and make a good name for ourselves as helpers of the Internet!” Its Czech counterpart Grammar Nazi–Czech Version (GNCV) claims to be the “Czech version of the Grammar Nazi organization.” The existence of these Facebook pages shows that in various language contexts, GN has become a widely circulated element of online culture. People who frequent or administer these pages turn others’ grammatical errors into a source of entertainment. On one hand, this can be considered a bottom-up participatory practice (Carpentier, 2011; Jenkins, 2006), aimed at the appreciation and treasuring of language as a cultural asset. However, as previous work has shown, this kind of humor also exploits social inequalities and may serve as a tool of social differentiation (Sherman and Švelch, 2015).

As a reaction to the democratization of written language, the GN phenomenon is symptomatic of language use in digital media and can be a suitable lens through which to analyze current debates about written communication online. However, it has not been thoroughly examined by either media studies or linguistics. In our view, it is a new media phenomenon that cannot be explained without sociolinguistic analysis, and at the same time, it is a sociolinguistic phenomenon which requires a systematic understanding of computer-mediated communication and online cultures. In this article, we will demonstrate how both disciplines can join forces to offer a satisfactory analysis of this phenomenon.

Our study is exploratory in nature and intends to map out the various ways in which the GN phenomenon manifests in two different linguistic environments—English and Czech, following our previous work on behavior toward language in Czech social media. Given the lack of existing research, we have opted to capture the potential diversity of the phenomenon rather than its particular features, preparing the ground for further scholarship on the topic. First, we will outline the relevant theoretical frameworks from sociolinguistics and media studies. Then, we will uncover the multiple facets of GN by presenting a mixed-method analysis of material collected from two Facebook pages that identify with the GN label, examining the practices, discourses, and values they represent.

“Grammar” and standard language ideology

Literacy is, among others, a means for the establishment and maintenance of standard languages. Its spread has been viewed as crucial to the development of modern nations, enabling masses of individuals to legitimately participate in public life and communicate with one another (Coulmas, 2013). At the same time, competence in standard varieties serves as cultural capital, that is, skill typically gained through education and socialization which can hold value for social mobility (Bourdieu, 2002), put to use by individuals both to gain employment requiring reading, writing, and speaking (as opposed to manual labor) and to differentiate themselves from others. A consequence of language standardization and thus an important instrument of social differentiation and exclusion is standard language ideology, or

a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogeneous spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant bloc institutions and which names as its model the written language, but which is drawn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle class. (Lippi-Green, 2012: 67)

As we will see below, this bias extends to written language as well.

One specific manifestation of standard language ideology is what Milroy and Milroy call “the complaint tradition” (Milroy and Milroy, 2012: 31). Those engaging in complaints have typically not been linguists, but rather self-appointed language experts from all walks of life, including professional language users (Cameron, 2012; Curzan, 2016; Milroy and Milroy, 2012; Schaffer, 2010). This tradition can be viewed as a manifestation of language management, which we understand through the lens of Language Management Theory (LMT; Jernudd and Neustupný, 1987; Nekvapil, 2016; Sherman and Švelch, 2015; Švelch, 2015) as activity directed toward language, from correcting slips of the tongue to complex national language policies.¹ Such activity is typically observable as a process beginning with the negative evaluation of noted deviations from standard (or other) linguistic norms and, in some cases, the design and implementation of adjustments, as done institutionally by teachers or editors. Negative responses to the complaint tradition have gained strong support from the field of linguistics. In their dialogue with the public, linguists have placed emphasis on their field’s descriptive as opposed to prescriptive character (Pinker, 1994).

Given that standard language ideology typically operates to the detriment of minoritized or marginalized language users, sociolinguistics and its related field of linguistic anthropology have seen many years of scholarship (e.g. Bernstein, 1964; Labov, 1972a, 1972b, 2006; Silverstein, 2003) aimed at describing and legitimizing non-standard varieties, demonstrating the disadvantaged position of users of non-standard varieties in societal domains, and showing how speakers acquire and/or accommodate to prestige varieties to move up in social status. Subsequently, in line with what Labov (1982) calls “the principle of error correction” (p. 172), many sociolinguists have aimed to overturn widespread misconceptions about language to the broadest possible public (Squires, 2014). This principle has carried over into the sphere of lay commentary, observable in online reactions to GN-like behavior. For example, blogger Chandra McCann (2012), a teacher of disadvantaged adults, urged careful consideration as to the real motivation for corrective actions online:² “Is this about reaching out with sincerity to help someone? Or is it about showing off superior knowledge, silencing someone, or taking a cheap shot for laughs?” In other words, critics point out that those engaging in GN-like practices, unaware of their own “literacy privilege,” use their cultural capital as disciplinary power. Thus, they perform what we view as a type of language management described as “language policing,” or behavior toward language aimed at producing societal order in a similar way that law enforcement does (Blommaert et al., 2009: 203, inspired by Foucault (2009) and explored in online contexts most recently by Phyak (2015) and De Bres and Belling (2015). In our previous work, we have further specified language policing in terms of LMT as “negative evaluation of noted deviations from language norms from a position of power, and the design and potential implementation of adjustments in the form of sanctions” (Sherman and Švelch, 2015: 319).

GN in online cultures

Online environments offer opportunities not only to rebel against linguistic norms or playfully subvert them (Danet, 2001), but also to promote and enforce them. Given the increased volume of written communication, spelling has become a major instrument of social differentiation, allowing for a revival of prescriptivism. Many of today’s language-oriented blogs continue in the conservative tradition of pre-digital prescriptivism, resulting in what Schaffer calls cyberprescriptivism (Schaffer, 2010). While the stakes and the ideology may remain the same, cyberprescriptivism takes different forms due to the specific features of online communication and online cultures.

Social media such as Facebook or Twitter have allowed for convenient sharing of and commenting on spelling errors observed online or offline, using screenshots, digital photography, or copying and pasting. Facebook specifically allows for the creation of pages or groups that can become outlets for prescriptivism, many of which state that they are doing so for the purposes of entertainment and humor. A large portion of online humor takes the form of “Internet memes”—groups of “digital items sharing common characteristics of content, form and/or stance, which were created with awareness of each other, and were circulated, imitated, and/or transformed via the Internet by many users” (Shifman, 2014: 41). As Milner (2016) has pointed out, the memetic quality of particular items is not necessarily tied to a particular format but can be applied to phrases, images, videos, and performances. In this article, we will encounter many examples of memetic images produced through photoshopping, image manipulation, or overlaying verbal commentary over an image.

The GN label itself can be described as a memetic phrase, spreading through the Internet while being collectively appropriated by users of discussion forums and social media; it is prescriptivism made meme. The history of the term has not been thoroughly documented. Its possibly earliest occurrence in the Google Groups archives dates back to 1991 in the comp.sys.apple2 group. In a discussion of Apple computers, one user was called out as a GN after pointing out another user’s use of the word “stupider,” while “there’s no such word.” Judging from their reactions, other discussants were already familiar with the term. Later in the 1990s, the word “Nazi” was used to satirize people who hold strong opinions and strictly require people to follow certain rules. A famous example is “The Soup Nazi” episode of the “Seinfeld” comedy series aired in 1995 (Ackerman, 1995). Current online usage suggests two rudimentary meanings of the term “GN.” On one hand, people use it as an insult. They criticize GNs for being “pompous,” “arrogant,” and annoying for focusing on form rather than content (Sorrow, 2003). On the other hand, the term has been appropriated by individuals or communities that openly support the prescriptivist cause and use the term voluntarily—self-appointed GNs. These tend to use the controversial “Nazi” metaphor with ironic detachment, while accepting the practice of policing and rule enforcement and engaging in language policing as memetic performance.³ Some of them establish outlets through which they share jokes about poor grammar or post other users’ grammatical errors. These will be the main focus of this article.

The opposing views of GN as pompous trolls or “helpers of the Internet” relate to discussions about power relations in online communication. On one hand, GN activities could be seen as examples of an online form of media participation, defined by Carpentier (2011) as audience practices oriented toward equalization of power in society. We can interpret GN pages as results of voluntary labor by amateur enthusiasts who care about language and literacy and take their time to correct mistakes and educate others by creating and sharing content—similar to members and administrators of various online support, self-help, and education groups (Carpentier, 2003; Eysenbach et al., 2004; Graham et al., 2016). On the other hand, GN pages can be interpreted as instruments of affirmation of the dominant standard language ideology and as tools of distinction for the users who possess literacy privilege. According to Bourdieu (1984), members of social classes form their cultural tastes in contrast to those of other classes. Partaking in GN activities then highlights differences between oneself and stereotypically less educated (and presumably lower class) people who commit grammatical mistakes.

When done seriously in public settings, calling out people for their lack of education may be considered rude, but it is more likely to be accepted in a humorous setting. This practice can often be playful and confrontational at the same time, employing ridicule and superiority-based humor, which implies an unequal power distribution between the joker and the butt of the joke.⁴ This perspective echoes the work of critical humor studies (Weaver, 2013). The authors following this line of research stress the corrective, disciplinary, and ultimately conservative nature of humor (Billig, 2005; Lockyer and Pickering, 2008; Meyer, 2000). Lockyer and Pickering’s (2008) call for serious investigations of “who has been chosen as the comic targets of ridicule and mockery and what lies behind these choices” has inspired a substantial part of our research (p. 5).

From a media studies perspective, we can, therefore, understand the GN phenomenon in three interrelated ways. On the descriptive level, we can consider it a meme—an element of online culture. From the normative-critical perspective, we can see two extreme interpretations of the GN phenomenon—GN as commendable participatory practice and GN as an instrument of social differentiation and literacy privilege in the Bourdieuian sense. We will demonstrate the applicability of these interpretations on two GN Facebook pages, each in a different sociolinguistic context.

Research goals

To demonstrate our approach to the GN phenomenon, we chose to study two Facebook pages which endorse and engage in GN practices in two languages—English and Czech. GN behavior worldwide is decentralized and takes place in multitudinous online settings, thus making it impossible to capture in its entirety. But by comparing the adoption of the GN label in these two contexts, we can arrive at a rich description of the possible ways the phenomenon can be interpreted and appropriated by social media users. Since studies of online cultural phenomena tend to be conducted on English-language material, we believe that the comparison with Czech will illuminate the potential differences in adoption of these phenomena. GN pages in English and in a national language with fewer speakers are often simultaneously accessible to many Facebook users, so the comparison of practices is not unique to academic research, but may even occur on the part of the users themselves. The choice of Czech follows our previous work on language management in this sociolinguistic context.

These two languages represent two very different situations. On one hand, English is a language used by native speakers, as well as a global lingua franca, especially in the online environment. Its user base is highly heterogeneous, and there is no single normative authority setting standards of language use (Saraceni et al., 2014). On the other hand, Czech is a language of an ethnically highly homogeneous nation-state, spoken by a vast majority of the citizens of the Czech Republic, but rarely used outside of the country. It is widely considered a national treasure, and a strong relationship to the language and its standard variety is promoted throughout primary and secondary education. The standard written variety was codified mainly during the Czech National Revival in the 18th and 19th centuries. Institutions such as the Czech Language Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences contribute to the continued codification of standard written Czech, for example, through the production of dictionaries and grammars. According to Neustupný and Nekvapil, little variation in Czech orthography is tolerated. They observe that “both in schools and in the community at large the problem of orthography has attracted attention at the expense of other problems” (Neustupný and Nekvapil, 2003: 243). We can, therefore, expect standard language ideology to be stronger and more rigorously enforced than in the case of English-speaking contexts. Additionally, although elements of global online culture make their way into the Czech Republic, web traffic data suggest that many local users prefer content produced domestically in the Czech language (Alexa, 2016). We can thus assume the existence of nationally specific features of online culture.

Based on our theoretical discussion, we propose two main research questions: (1) How prevalent is language policing on GN pages and which linguistic phenomena, language users, and situational contexts are its targets? (2) How is this policing performed and represented in the pages’ discourse? While the first question will be answered by quantitative content analysis, we will address the second one qualitatively.

Material and methodology

Material selection

For each language, we picked the most popular Facebook pages (based on the number of page “likes”) explicitly labeling themselves as GN—the GNP for English and GNCV for Czech. Although these pages cannot be representative of GN practices in general, they can be considered relevant examples to illustrate the adoption of the GN phenomenon.

The former, GNP, was founded in 2012 and had gained over 20,000 likes at the time of data collection.⁵ The latter, GNCV, was also founded in 2012, and had over 12,000 likes when the data were collected. Both pages are used for entertainment purposes and for language policing in a humorous tone; both allow the administrators and users alike to post content, although by default, “posts by page” are displayed more prominently than “posts by users.”⁶

Data collection

Based on our previous observations (Sherman and Švelch, 2015) and a pilot study, we found that there was little variation in the output of GN pages throughout the year, so we chose to study a continuous period of 4 months from 1 August until 30 November 2014. We collected the material in HTML format using the Scrapbook extension for Mozilla Firefox, as well as in the form of formatted data using the Netvizz application for Facebook (Rieder, 2013). Overall, we collected 238 posts from GNP (166 posts by page and 72 posts by users) and 405 posts from GNCV (54 posts by page and 351 posts by users), along with data about the number of likes and comments they had received. For the purposes of this article, all Czech material was translated into English by the authors.

Analysis

For our analysis, we used a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative content analysis and qualitative probes. In the content analysis, the multi-modal data were coded for four main content-related variables. The variables and coding manual were adapted from our previous research (Sherman and Švelch, 2015), taking into account the comparative nature of the present project. One Facebook post served as the unit of analysis, and each was coded based on the content of the post (image, status, or video), not its captions or comments, which were reintroduced in the qualitative stage.

Our first variable, (1) post type, requires a more detailed description. We distinguished between (a) record of an individual linguistic deviation,⁷ (b) record of an individual linguistic deviation manipulated into the form of a joke or a memetic image, (c) general commentary about people’s linguistic proficiency, (d) language jokes or puns, (e) communication with group members, and (f) other. The deviations—types (a) and (b)—are generally most common; to demonstrate the difference between the two types, see Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1.

Example of post type (a)—record of an individual deviation within a memetic image. Note that the commenters react in various ways, including a response with a potentially offensive meme alluding to the presumed level of intelligence of the young women in the pictures.⁸

Figure 2.

Example of post type (b)—record of an individual linguistic deviation manipulated into the form of a joke or a memetic image. The original screen capture of a text-only Facebook post (“ahh i want a pure bread husky”) has been supplemented with a humorously incongruous image.

In addition, we coded for (2) deviation type (spelling, punctuation, typos, etc.), (3) deviation context (private or public personal communication, advertising, restaurants and service industry establishments, news media, etc.), and (4) online or offline⁹ origin of the deviation.

The material was coded by four coders, a pair for each language. After two training rounds on 80 units per language (34% of GNP material and 20% of GNCV material), intercoder reliability, as measured by Krippendorff’s alpha, was .758, .78, .822, and .692 for each respective variable in the GNP material and .905, .821, .804, and .83 in the GNCV material, reaching the acceptable level of reliability (Lombard et al., 2002). The results of the content analysis are n = 238 on the English page and n = 405 on the Czech one.

During the quantitative coding process, we flagged examples of posts for qualitative analysis. We selected 15 posts per page based on the following criteria: (1) high user engagement indicating that the post resonated with the preferences of the users, (2) analytical salience in relation to our research questions, and (3) our informed observation—based on reading all material collected—that these posts are typical of a larger group of similar posts. The qualitative analysis of these posts, including captions and comments, combined theory-driven and inductive approaches. We identified the common meanings and practices attributed to GN on each page while following the principles of analytic induction (Preissle, 2008).

Comparing GN page content: a quantitative analysis

Regarding the types of user and administrator activities, Czech page users contributed many more “posts by users” (87%) than English page users (30%). GNCV is, therefore, more reliant on the bottom-up participation of ordinary users, and GNP more dependent on the preferences and motivations of the administrator(s). In terms of contributing original posts, Czech users are more participatory.

We identified a striking difference between the two pages concerning the initial category of post content type. The majority of posts on the Czech page (94%) were examples of deviations, highlighting the evaluative element of the GN practice. All other categories constituted less than 2%, regardless of whether they were posted by page or users. The English page displayed more variation in post activity type. Jokes were represented the most (34%), followed by “only” 21% unaltered deviations (compared to the Czech data) and 18% deviations made into a joke, meme, or mockery (Table 1).

Table 1.

Distribution of posts based on post content type.

Post type	Czech page		English page
Post type	Percentage	Count	Percentage	Count
(a) Deviation	94.32	382	21.01	50
(b) Deviation » joke	0.74	3	18.49	44
(c) General commentary	1.48	6	3.36	8
(d) Joke/pun	0.74	3	34.45	82
(e) In-group	1.73	7	13.87	33
(f) Other	0.99	4	8.82	21
Total	100.00	405	100.00	238

Source: Authors’ data.

Both on the English and Czech pages, the overwhelming majority of posts (82% on GNP, 86% on GNCV) consisted of images, despite the overall GN orientation toward written language, which should theoretically be reproducible in text-only posts. This reflects different tendencies on each page. On the Czech page, photographs or scans are used as evidence of the deviations in authentic settings, while on the English page many of these were in fact memetic images containing language jokes or puns and featured digital artwork or photoshopping. On the Czech page, the category of deviations turned into jokes—requiring the use of image editing software—was almost nonexistent (1% or 3 posts), and GNCV users and administrators were more conservative in their use of digital tools.¹⁰

As for the linguistic phenomena subjected to GN behavior, the numbers shown in Table 2 suggest that on both pages, “grammar” is mostly used as a code word for spelling, as about 75% of deviation-based posts feature spelling errors and the percentages for all other types of errors are similarly low.¹¹ Rather than focusing on clarity, style or syntax, GN pages tend to highlight stereotypical errors such as the confusion of the homophones “your” and “you’re” in English or the incorrect usage of the allographs “i” and “y” for the phoneme /ɪ/ and “í” and “ý” for the phoneme /i:/ in Czech. This supports the results of our previous study using a different data sample from two Czech GN pages (Sherman and Švelch, 2015). Because spelling errors tend to stereotypically signify individuals with a lower level of education, the content posted on GN pages then tends to reinforce the divisions between those who can spell and those who cannot, rather than assessing overall text quality.

Table 2.

Distribution of posts based on deviation type.

Deviation type	Czech page		English page
Deviation type	Percentage	Count	Percentage	Count
(a) Spelling	75.58	291	72.34	68
(b) Punctuation	7.27	28	10.64	10
(c) Typo	3.38	13	7.45	7
(d) Morphology	9.87	38	7.45	7
(e) Style/word choice	3.90	15	2.13	2
Total	100.00	385	100.00	94

Source: Authors’ data.

Regarding the types of contexts and users that became targets of GN practices, the English page contained less data in total for the relevant variables due to its more varied representation of post types. There was, though, a slightly greater overall balance between categories than on the Czech page, with the highest percentage of noted deviations (29%) from public personal communication, especially social media, followed by private personal communication (15%) and unofficial writing in public spaces, such as graffiti (also 15%). On the Czech page, the highest percentage of noted deviations (44%) came from company and business communication—packaging, signs in stores, advertisements, or classifieds (59% of which were offline), followed by professional media content (22%), such as nationwide television or online news outlets, and public personal communication (13%). Overall, Czech users frequently targeted their criticism toward professional language users from news outlets and commercial companies and establishments, while ordinary language users were more frequently targeted in the English material. Both pages regularly featured public personal communication, mostly from Facebook itself, but it appeared slightly more often on the English page.

The Czech page had a lower percentage of online-originating deviations (52%) than the English page (67%), with a difference between posts by page (“only” 33% online) and posts by users (56% online). This indicates that the Czech administrator(s) especially promote(s) the idea of a GN sympathizer as an observer and guardian of offline public spaces. These tendencies will be further discussed in the qualitative section.

Although our sample is not representative of the ongoing output of the pages or GN activities in general, our observations show substantial potential for diversity in the adoption of the GN phenomenon, and in the targets of ridicule and distinction, despite the shared focus on spelling-related deviations. The results also give us insight into the topics and kinds of content that the interactions on the pages revolve around and, therefore, serve as a springboard for qualitative analysis.

GN in English: “clever trolls” and remixers

The English GNP page featured a wide variety of content. While its majority consisted of jokes and puns along with altered and unaltered deviations, we also observed images with instructions on how to write properly or jokes unrelated to language. However, a distinguishing category of posts in the English material involved screenshots of text message exchanges, fairly common and well received (in terms of “likes”) on the English page but almost never appearing on the Czech page.¹² Text message exchanges allow for a clearly arranged, narrativized display of the language management process, in which a deviation is made and then corrected, mocked, or transitioned into a joke or pun by its initial intended recipient (see Figure 3). The recurring narrative is that of humorously ridiculing (or “owning” in the online jargon) the communication partner by pointing out his or her grammatical errors.

Figure 3.

The incorrect spelling of “heart” is pointed out by the text recipient, who simultaneously creates a joke by responding to the text content. Note that this post was originally “shared by Grammarly,” as can be seen in the lower left-hand corner. Commenters respond, among others, by evoking gender-related imagery (“Fast relief for irritating cunts”) which they may associate with the authors of perceived deviations.

As in Figure 3, many of these posts have been shared from another online outlet. On the English page, text message-based posts were shared from entertainment blogs such as 9GAG, Owned.com, or SmartphOWNED.com. We can reasonably expect that these pieces of content had already circulated online before being posted on GNP and overlap with other genres of memes. GNP is, therefore, connected to a well-established infrastructure of blogs and Facebook pages dedicated to language, as well as online humor and entertainment. As we can see on Figures 1 to 3, some of the content is accompanied by comments that make connections between lack of grammar skills and gender, and thus can be read as misogynistic.

Given the unclear origin of many of these images, their authenticity is often debatable; a marked difference from the Czech page, which tends to feature deviations photographed in offline settings. This is not to say that all GNP content is prefabricated by media professionals. In fact, there are many examples of complex and playful assemblages of images, resulting from a chain of remixing and appropriation. The example in Figure 4 was posted repeatedly over the course of the period examined.

Figure 4.

A repeatedly posted assemblage of images playing with categories of Internet users.

A Facebook user posted a photograph of a young woman holding a sexually suggestive pose indoors, where a garbage receptacle is visible. An initial commenter wrote “I see your garbage,” possibly meant literally. Another commenter followed up by “correcting” the first commenter, writing “You’re*.”¹³ Another user took a screenshot of this series of posts, anonymized them, and then added a meme image containing the text “NOT SURE IF FAIL GRAMMAR NAZI OR CLEVER TROLL,” commenting on the entire language management process. This hints at two possible interpretations: (a) the second commenter “incorrectly” managing the previous comment, which then contained an orthographic error (thus becoming a “fail Grammar Nazi”) or (b) making a joke out of the potential new meaning created by changing “your” to “you’re” (“clever troll”). Here, we can observe a chain of superiority humor, with superiority first claimed by the second commenter and subsequently the maker of the meme. Finally, the image is taken up by the administrator to survey users on their assessment of the conundrum.

Also notable in this example is the explicit reference to the GN label. On the GNP page, the explicit use of the term “GN” or Nazi imagery was present in 12% of all posts, as opposed to 1% on the Czech page.¹⁴ The English page is, therefore, more concerned with defining and reaffirming the GN identity. To some extent, this orientation toward jokes, pranks, and self-referential humor is determined by the preferences of this page’s administrator(s), who are responsible for the majority of the posted content. Many of their steps, including the repeatedly posted link to “join the party,” leading to an associated YouTube channel, suggest that the page is intended as a venue for memes and online entertainment. This is reflected in the fact that users’ engagement is often limited to “liking” the posted content. In other words, they laugh while somebody else performs the management. As we will see, this contrasts with the more equally participatory Czech page.

In contrast with the declared goals of the page, our qualitative analysis has shown the tendency in the English material to portray GNs not as “helpers of the Internet” but as pranksters who utilize their knowledge of language to scold others in a humorous and entertaining manner. This portrayal of GN ties knowledge of spelling with another type of cultural capital—knowledge of online humor and joke-making skills. These can be used as weapons in the playful but often confrontational culture associated with online discussion spaces such as Reddit or 4chan (Massanari, 2015; Phillips, 2015). Similar to those spaces, the power dynamic of these exchanges may result in jokes made at the expense of “less privileged” members of society (e.g. women). Overall, the page paints a picture of GN as a phenomenon situated firmly within the current landscape of English-language online culture.

GN in Czech: guardians of the public space

More than 90% of posts on the Czech page during the examined period were photographs, scans, or screenshots of perceived deviations from linguistic norms, especially from two sources: national news media and offline spaces.

As for the former, GNCV users frequently use errors to lament the language skills of media workers, enjoying schadenfreude over errors committed in media already considered lowbrow, such as the country’s major commercial television channel TV Nova. The post with the second highest level of engagement on the Czech page (Figure 5) shows a newscast with the incorrect caption “Zvířata umřeli zřejmě kvůli návštěvníkům” (animals died likely because of visitors), the correct form of the verb being “umřela,” due to agreement with the noun “zvíře” (animal), which has neuter gender in Standard Czech, therefore requiring an “-a” ending when pluralized. This is a relatively common deviation, as some widespread non-standard varieties of Czech do not display this gender distinction.

Figure 5.

Example of a deviation by media professionals. TV Nova’s Rey Koranteng on the left.

Among the most liked user comments were those jokingly fabricating “correct” interpretations of the sentence or playing with the ambiguity created by the error. One user suggested that the news actually concerned the popular rock band “Sto zvířat” (One Hundred Animals), that is, men, which would justify the choice of the masculine ending “-i.” Other users mimicked the deviation, using the comments section to generate equally incorrect, potentially funny sentences. Other comments utilized superiority humor, pointing out the lowbrow status of the TV station. At least two commenters employed racial stereotypes, pointing out that the caption might have been written by the newscaster—who is of mixed Czech and Ghanaian origin and thus could be mistaken for a foreigner or an immigrant. While similar comments were in the minority, they did occur, hinting at a darker side of the humor at play.

Photographs from offline spaces tended to feature shops and restaurants. Many of the deviations were attributed to service industry workers who are unlikely to engage in extensive, regular written communication, highlighting the theme of distinction of users from the less educated, possibly lower class citizens. A typical target of such distinction can be seen in Figure 6, which shows a menu display board from outside a pub whose name can be translated as the “Tramp’s Shack.” The style used by the writer indicates an unsophisticated, homely place. This is complemented by the repeated spelling error in the word “denně” (daily), which is missing one “n.” This double “n,” an effect of the “-ní” derivational suffix appended to the word “den” (day), is a feature of standard Czech spelling taught in elementary schools.

Figure 6.

A menu display photographed outside of the “Tramp’s Shack.” Without errors, it translates as “Tramp’s Shack / Kozel 11 / Budvar 10 [types of beer] / Always something to chew on / Hot and cold drinks / Soup daily / Daily from 12pm.”

Additionally, the Czech page also contained a few examples of images documenting language management occurring in the original context of the deviation. In the English material, this usually happens online. However, the Czech users also shared offline management, such as graffiti corrected with proofreading marks.

GNCV promotes the idea of a GN sympathizer as a guardian of the public space, an active vigilante hunting for deviations and displaying them for collective dissection. Due to its focus on a national language, the content posted was drawn from authentic local offline contexts and national media and its connections to English-language online culture tended to be rather limited. Page activity was more consistent in its mission to seek, evaluate, and reprimand non-standard usage of written Czech. Despite its inspiration from an English-language phenomenon, it was fairly reserved in terms of image manipulation and references to online culture. Its more prominent characteristic is its continuation in the tradition of the systematic promotion and enforcement of the standard language by Czech educational institutions and cultural elites.

Conclusion

In our theoretical overview, we pointed out that although the term “GN” is relatively new, it has been preceded for centuries by various prescriptive writings and practices. Despite having played a part in many changes to contemporary uses of language, social media and discussion fora are also used to promote standard language ideology and the privileges it offers to users of standard written language varieties. GN-related pages and activities, therefore, represent a conservative current within an environment which has otherwise democratized access to written communication, constituting yet another instance of what Blommaert et al. (2009) call “‘modernist’ responses to ‘postmodern’ conditions” (p. 204).

Both administrators and users frame their activity as lighthearted and entertaining. Although much of the humor plays with the arbitrariness of language as a sign system, it is accompanied by forceful insistence on the rules of standard varieties, taking advantage of the unequal distribution of the knowledge of them. Even when we laugh at a language mistake, not a particular person, someone must have committed that mistake, and the opportunity to be a GN is tied to a kind of “literacy privilege” (Squires, 2014). GN pages reinstate this traditional privilege in a new environment of online media and become a safe space to exhibit one’s linguistic superiority, shielded by a humorous tone. The material shows two forms that this privilege can take. In the English material, it is the privilege of the entertainer, associated with the right to the upper hand in conversation, sometimes at the expense of less privileged speakers. In the Czech material, it is more of a traditional privilege of cultural capital-possessing guardians of the public space. The page, among other things, serves as a convenient outlet to perform, exhibit, and guard this capital to an extent impossible in offline contexts. The focus on discovery, along with the prevalence of user-generated posts allow us to argue that the Czech GN page has a more participatory nature than the English one, which rather serves as a platform for consumption of entertainment. Despite this difference, both pages identify with the cultural elite and commit to exhibiting the language skills of those who possess them rather than teaching those skills to others, or even questioning their relevance. Although they distance themselves from the Nazi ideology, they operate on the assumption that standard language is something that one can be a “Nazi” about. It is not the use of Nazi imagery and name that is controversial about GN practices, but rather this belief that a standard language is a law to be enforced via policing.

Despite the international adoption of the GN label, our comparison has shown that it signifies different practices in different contexts. The Czech page is primarily concerned with policing everyday language use, while the English page serves as a hub for language-related humor. Catering to users in the most developed online language culture in the world in a lingua franca of much of the Western world, the English page does not appear to be connected to a concrete, delineated physical space. Instead, it presents itself as a part of Internet culture, with frequent references to Internet memes and online entertainment. However, the orientation of the Czech page, situated in a smaller, relatively marginal and highly homogenized culture of Internet users, can be described as local and national. For these reasons, posted deviations have a stronger connection to the Czech public space, concerning local businesses, institutions, politics, and media. The GNCV tendency to police public spaces may be associated with the strong authority of national normative institutions and the embodiment of standard language ideology in the educational system. In this context, a label originating in the online environment has become inextricably connected to physical offline spaces. Overall, GN can serve as an example of an online user practice that can be very much dependent on the national context and the sociology of the language in question, especially given that language is in many European countries understood as an important marker of national identities. And yet, the contexts examined here do not exist in isolation. Czech GN culture has blossomed online, inspired in part by similar practices in English. But in incorporating local (national) aspects, it has taken on a life of its own.

This study has explored the adoption of the GN label in two specific contexts, and introduced a set of concepts that can be applied to study GNs and similar online language management practices. If we look at examples from other language contexts, we might find practices that fall in between or beyond these two poles. Future research can provide more in-depth analyses of particular facets of these activities, as well as other sociolinguistic contexts. The current lack of literature on the topic may indicate the need for more collaboration between media and communication studies and sociolinguistics. While media studies can help sociolinguistics on the way to studying increasingly mediated social interactions, sociolinguists can ground online media research in its social and linguistic realities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Jan Švelch for his invaluable multifaceted assistance on this research project and to Václav Štětka and the PolCoRe research group for their consistent feedback, technical, and other support. The authors would also like to thank Petr Kaderka, Jiří Homoláč, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful commentary on the text. Responsibility for any errors remains our own.

Author’s note

Tamah Sherman is also affiliated to the Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Czech Science Foundation standard grant no. 14–05575S—“The role of social media in the transformation of political communication and citizen participation in the Czech Republic.”

Notes

Author biographies

Jaroslav Švelch is a lecturer and researcher at Charles University’s Faculty of Social Sciences, and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bergen. He was a Microsoft Research New England PhD intern in 2012. His work focuses on local histories of computer games, social uses of digital technologies, humor in virtual spaces, online language management, and the concepts of monstrosity and adversity in games.

Tamah Sherman is a lecturer at Charles University’s Faculty of Arts and a researcher at the Czech Language Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences. Her work takes sociolinguistic approaches to interactions and policies (as well as their interplay) in the contemporary Czech Republic, with a particular focus on multilingualism and themes and domains including individual biographies, work, education, family, and the new media.

References

Ackerman

(1995) Seinfeld S07E06: the Soup Nazi. New York: NBC.

Alexa (2016) Alexa–Top sites in Czech Republic. Available at: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/CZ (accessed 18 June 2016).

Baron

(2002) Who sets e-mail style? Prescriptivism, coping strategies, and democratizing communication access. The Information Society 18(5): 403–413.

Baron

(2008) Always on: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Bernstein

(1964) Elaborated and restricted codes: their social origins and some consequences. American Anthropologist 66(6, part 2): 55–69.

Billig

(2005) Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. London: SAGE.

Blommaert

Kelly-Holmes

Lane

et al . (2009) Media, multilingualism and language policing: an introduction. Language Policy 8(3): 203–207.

Boland

Queen

(2016) If you’re house is still available, send me an email: personality influences reactions to written errors in email messages. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0149885.

Bourdieu

(1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Bourdieu

(2002) The forms of capital. In: Biggart

(ed.) Readings in Economic Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 280–291.

11.

Cameron

(2012) Verbal Hygiene. London; New York: Routledge.

12.

Carpentier

(2003) The BBC’s Video Nation as a participatory media practice signifying everyday life, cultural diversity and participation in an online community. International Journal of Cultural Studies 6(4): 425–447.

13.

Carpentier

(2011) Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle. Bristol; Chicago, IL: Intellect.

14.

Coulmas

(2013) Writing and Society: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Curzan

(2016) Fixing English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Danet

(2001) Cyberpl@y: Communicating Online. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

17.

De Bres

Belling

(2015) Free your stuff Luxembourg! Language policies, practices and ideologies in a multilingual Facebook group. Language Policy 14(4): 357–375.

18.

Eysenbach

Powell

Englesakis

et al . (2004) Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. BMJ 328(7449): 1166.

19.

Feng

(2014) Intercoder reliability indices: disuse, misuse, and abuse. Quality & Quantity 48(3): 1803–1815.

20.

Foucault

(2009) Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College De France, 1977–78 (ed Senellart

Ewald

Fontana

). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

21.

Graham

Jackson

Wright

(2016) “We need to get together and make ourselves heard”: everyday online spaces as incubators of political action. Information, Communication & Society 19(10): 1373–1389.

22.

Herring

(2012) Grammar and electronic communication. In: Chapelle

(ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 2338–2346.

23.

Jenkins

(2006) Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York University Press.

24.

Jernudd

Neustupný

(1987) Language planning: for whom? In: Laforge

(ed.) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique [Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning]. Québec City, QC, Canada: Les Presses de L’Université Laval, pp. 69–84.

25.

Labov

(1972a) Academic ignorance and black intelligence. The Atlantic Monthly, June: 59–67.

26.

Labov

(1972b) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

27.

Labov

(1982) Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: the case of the black English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society 11(2): 165–201.

28.

Labov

(2006) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Lippi-Green

(2012) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States. London; New York: Routledge.

30.

Lockyer

Pickering

(2008) You must be joking: the sociological critique of humour and comic media. Sociology Compass 2(3): 808–820.

31.

Lombard

Snyder-Duch

Bracken

(2002) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research 28(4): 587–604.

32.

McCann

(2012) Literacy privilege, part 2: but wait… you’re an English teacher. Painting the Grey Area. Available at: https://paintingthegreyarea.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/literacy-privilege-part-2-but-wait-youre-an-english-teacher/ (accessed 27 July 2016).

33.

Massanari

(2015) #Gamergate and the fappening: how reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures. New Media & Society 19(3): 329–346.

34.

Meyer

(2000) Humor as a double-edged sword: four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory 10(3): 310–331.

35.

Milner

(2016) The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

36.

Milroy

(2012) Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.

37.

Nekvapil

(2016) Language management theory as one approach in language policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17(1): 11–22.

38.

Neustupný

Nekvapil

(2003) Language management in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 4(3–4): 181–366.

39.

Phillips

(2015) This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture the Information Society Series. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

40.

Phyak

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

41.

Pinker

(1994) The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow and Company.

42.

Preissle

(2008) Analytic induction. In: Given

(ed.) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 15–16.

43.

Rieder

(2013) Studying Facebook via data extraction: the Netvizz application. In: WebSci ‘13: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Web Science Conference, pp. 346–355. New York: ACM.

44.

Sanden

(2016) Language management × 3: a theory, a sub-concept, and a business strategy tool. Applied Linguistics 37(4): 520–535.

45.

Saraceni

Williams

Wright

(2014) Norms and authority in language: the case of UK English. Sociolinguistica 28: 137–154.

46.

Schaffer

(2010) Old whine online: prescriptive grammar blogs on the Internet. English Today 26(4): 23–28.

47.

Sherman

Švelch

(2015) “Grammar Nazis never sleep”: Facebook humor and the management of standard written language. Language Policy 14(4): 315–334.

48.

Shifman

(2014) Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

49.

Silverstein

(2003) Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23(3–4): 193–229.

50.

Sorrow (2003) Grammar Nazi. Urban Dictionary. Available at: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Grammar+Nazi (accessed 11 January 2015).

51.

Squires

(2014) Language log » 25 questions for teaching with “word crimes.” Available at: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13521 (accessed 9 December 2014).

52.

Švelch

(2015) Excuse my poor English: language management in English-language online discussion forums. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2015(232): 143–175.

53.

Weaver

(2013) A rhetorical discourse analysis of online anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic jokes. Ethnic and Racial Studies 36(3): 483–499.