From linguists’ point of view, grammar is a set of patterns for how words are put together to form phrases or clauses, whether in spoken or written. Different languages have different patterns. Some scholars have tried to identify patterns common to all languages. But apart from some basic features, few of these so-called linguistic universals have been found.

The study of these patterns open up “an ongoing debate” between two positions, known as prescriptivism and descriptivism. Prescriptivism thinks a given language should follow consistent rules, while descriptivism sees variation and adaptation as a natural and necessary part of language. From much of history, the vast majority of language was spoken. But as people became more interconnected, writing gained importance. Written language was standardized to allow broader communication and ensure that people in different parts around could understand each other.

Language purists worked to establish and promote this standard by detailing a set of rules that reflected the established grammar of their times. And rules for written grammar were applied to spoken language as well. Speech patterns that deviated from the written rules were considered signs of low social status. And many people who are grown-ups speaking in these ways were forced to adopt the standardized form.

More recently, however, linguists have understood that speech is a separate phenomenon from writing with its own regularities and patterns. Most of us learn to speak at such an early age that we don’t even remember it. We form our spoken skills through unconscious habits, not memorized rules. And because speech also uses mood and intonation for meaning, its structure is often more flexible, adapting to the needs of speakers and listeners. This could mean avoiding complex clauses that are hard to understand in real time, making changes to avoid awkward pronunciation or removing sounds to make speech faster. This linguistic approach that tries to understand and map such differences without dictating correct ones is known as descriptivism. Rather than deciding how language should be used, it describes how people actually use it and tracks the innovation they come up with in the process.

But while the debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism continues, the two are not mutually exclusive. At its best, prescriptivism is useful for informing people about the most common established patterns at a given point in time. Ultimately, grammar is best considered as a set of linguistic habits that are constantly being negotiated and reinvented by the entire group of language users. Like language itself, it’s a wonderful and complex fabric woven through the contributions of speakers and listeners, writers and readers, prescriptivists and descriptivists from both near and far.

Children often learn new languages more easily than adults do, but it’s unclear why. Some theorize that grasping a language requires absorbing subtle patterns unconsciously and that adults’superior conscious reasoning is to blame. New research suggests that, indeed, grown-ups might just be too smart for their own good.

For a recent study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, a group of Belgian adults at the same time read and heard strings of four made-up words(such as “kieng nief siet hiem”). Specific consonants (辅音) always appeared at the beginning or end of a word if the word contained a certain vowel (元音). Participants next read the sequences aloud quickly. Their ability to avoid mistakes doing so indicated how well they absorbed the consonant-vowel patterns.

But before exposure to the new words, the participants had carried out a separate test: pressing keys to react to letters and numbers. Some got a much faster, more mentally draining version of this test. Those who did the difficult version claimed greater mental exhaustion afterward—but performed better on the following language task. The researchers assume that tired learners used less conscious analysis on the word rules: they were free to learn like a child.

For a related paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, the research team had English-speaking adults listen to streams of syllables (音节) secretly grouped into three-syllable “words.” Later, they played pairs of three-syllable units; one word in the pair came from the stream, and one was a new combination. The participants guessed which word was familiar, then rated their confidence.

In one participant group, some had first done the original mentally draining test. In another, some had received magnetic pulses to interrupt activity in a brain area that previous research has linked to executive control. In both groups, these measures improved participants’ performance on the syllable task when they were unsure about their answers, indicating unconscious analysis of speech.

Neuroscientist Michael Ullman, who was not involved in either paper, likes that both the studies added to mental burden differently and measured different skills. That’s really good in science because you’ve got evidences pointing to the same direction,” he says, adding that he would like to see higher language skills such as grammar studied this way.

In these times of worldwide communications, science is no different from other professions in that English is now the established “universal” language. Like it or not, most scientific reports are published in English, although some countries also have journals that are published in their native languages. But how did English develop into the dominant language of scientific discourse (会话)? Was it a joint decision or did it happen progressively and “accidentally”? And was it a positive move for all?

Arabic was used in all countries with an Islamic culture in the middle ages, while in Europe Latin was used for communication in science and education until the 17th century. During the Enlightenment, Latin lost favour as it was thought to be too complicated. Instead, scientific communication became more “provincial”; German, French, Italian and English were used in their respective countries and colonies, with different languages being more important in different disciplines — German, for instance, was widely used in physics, chemistry and some aspects of medicine and psychology. The relative use of these languages changed through history, reflecting the relative growth and decline of science, culture and economics in these countries. Thus, the use of French predominated in the 18th century, whereas German was most widespread in the 19th and English dominated the 20th. Social upheaval (剧变) also played a role — the use of French declined dramatically after World War I, whereas that of German increased in parallel until World War II. After World War II, and especially in the past 30 years, English progressively established itself as the primary language for scientific communication as America came to dominate both basic research and technology. In the 1920s the need for a universal language of science was debated, and a synthetic language, Esperanto, was developed but never widely used.

Despite the obvious appeal of having a common language that allows scientists around the world to communicate with one another, there can indeed be some drawbacks in using English for all communication — non-native English speakers can be at a disadvantage compared with native speakers when it comes to expressing and highlighting the interest of their papers and communicating with editors and referees. Careful copy editing can tackle the problem of accessibility of accepted manuscripts, but upstream of this stage it is down to all parties to ensure that they evaluate work on its scientific merit rather than its proper use of grammar.

The use of a universal language for communication in science is unavoidable as one obvious advantage is that findings can be more widely accessed, and resisting this concept for the sake of cultural difference would seem to be anything but productive. However, the use of national language and less technical language is useful in communicating science to the general public, as is the case with the Nature gateways in Japanese, Chinese, Korean and German.