Hypercorrection as a By-product of Education

Abstract

Prescriptive grammar rules are taught in education, generally to ban the use of certain frequently encountered constructions in everyday language. This may lead to hypercorrection, meaning that the prescribed form in one construction is extended to another one in which it is in fact prohibited by prescriptive grammar. We discuss two such cases in Dutch: the hypercorrect use of the comparative particle dan ‘than’ in equative constructions, and the hypercorrect use of the accusative pronoun hen ‘them’ for a dative object. In two experiments, high school students of three educational levels were tested on their use of these hypercorrect forms (nexp1 = 162, nexp2 = 159). Our results indicate an overall large amount of hypercorrection across all levels of education, including pre-university level students who otherwise perform better in constructions targeted by prescriptive grammar rules. We conclude that while teaching prescriptive grammar rules to high school students seems to increase their use of correct forms in certain constructions, this comes at a cost of hypercorrection in others.

Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking

“…Hubers and de Hoop (2013) find a strong correlation between level of education and the use of als "as" or dan "than" in a comparative. They argue that this correlation clearly reflects the strong influence of the prescriptive rule taught in schools (see also Hubers et al, 2019), repressing the use of an equative particle in a comparative construction in Dutch. The prescriptive rule against the use of an equative particle in a comparative construction is a well-known issue in German, too (Grebe, 1966;Jäger, 2010).…”

“…Whatever motivates the use of an equative particle in a comparative construction in Dutch and German, the fact that it frequently occurs in the language makes this grammatical norm violation different from ordinary ungrammatical sentences, which hardly ever show up in everyday speech. Not only is the prescriptive rule explicitly taught in secondary education (Hubers et al, 2019), lay people also regularly express their concerns about the grammatical norm violation on social media (cf. Ermans, 2016 on German).…”

The Differential Object Marker in Valencian: Another Failure of Prescriptivism

“…Educational institutions are spaces where prescriptive practices are enforced (Chrisomalis 2015; Collins 2022; Hubers et al 2020). Prescriptivism has been defined as "individual, institutional, and socially shared preferences for how language ought to be used and any attempts made to regulate the language of others" (Cushing and Snell 2023, p. 196).…”

“…Despite the observed educational effects of prescriptivism, it is essential to consider the potential pitfalls associated with the application of prescriptive norms. Hubers et al (2020) caution against the risk of hypercorrection, defined as "the overuse of prestigious forms in constructions in which they did not originally occur, and in fact should not occur according to prescriptive rules" (p. 552). As an illustration, Hubers et al (2020) provided instances of replacing "me" with "I" in situations where "me" would be grammatically correct according to prescriptive norms (e.g., "It is difficult for my wife and me to find time" instead of "It is difficult for my wife and I to find time").…”

Learning to think about language step by step: a pedagogical template for the development of cognitive and reflective thinking skills in L1 grammar education

“…The prescriptive norm has always been an important topic of education and many prescriptive rules are given in textbooks, language advice books and on language websites (cf. Hubers et al, 2020). One of the main reasons teachers teach their students these rules is because they themselves have learned them, and they simply pass them on to the next generation (see Hulshof, 2002).…”