Differences of opinion need to be considered in light of whether the usage in question is a context-appropriate variant or simply incorrect. Many of the changes I routinely suggest will be optional, after all, which concedes the role of opinion and personal preference; others will be unequivocally necessary because of an inviolable rule of grammar or punctuation that can be cited with authority in a recognized and respected source.

Linguistic register—language chosen for use in a specific situation or for a particular purpose—must also be taken into account: The standards in a colloquial setting are far different from those for journalism or academia. One must, therefore, examine variant usages according to two opposing paradigms of propriety and validity:

• A prescriptive approach to grammar dictates rules of correctness and attempts to impose them on speakers, in the manner of the French and Spanish language academies;

• a descriptive model recognizes the inevitability of linguistic change and accepts the kinds of real-life usages that would be deemed barbarisms and solecisms by the prescriptivists.

My job is to make clear to my clients the nature of the changes I advise. The fundamental distinction I make between proofreading and editing means there should never be any question as to which revisions should be considered mandatory and which may be discretionary. I want my clients to be informed about their options and feel free to act accordingly—including, if they choose, rejection of something I've suggested.

(back to FAQs)