It’s interesting how you articualte this nuancd perspective on grammar. How do you envision the 'middle ground' between foundational rules and conversational fluency evolving, especially with new AI tools for language learning, given your very insightful analysis?
First of all — thank you so much for taking the time to read and reflect on my article. It really means a lot to me that you engaged with it!
To your question (brace yourself.. it's a big long):
I think the “middle ground” between rules and fluency is already shifting — and it has always shifted. Language is not static. It evolves through culture, contact, misunderstandings, jokes, migrations, and yes, through “the masses.” Most of the big changes in language have never come from the purists, but from everyday people who simply spoke the way their world shaped them.
We sometimes forget that “correct grammar” is a very recent invention. Rules only became “official” once written language and printing standardized things — and that’s a tiny fraction of human history.
Now, with global connectivity, we’re seeing languages influence each other faster than ever. I live in Italy, and perfectly good Italian words are constantly being replaced by English ones — often incorrectly. And AI reflects this. AI doesn’t invent language out of nowhere; it mirrors society, with all its creativity and all its mistakes.
So how do I see the middle ground evolving, especially with AI?
Honestly, I see a split.
Some people are “waking up” — becoming more curious, intentional, reflective about how they learn and express themselves. Others are taking the copy-and-paste shortcut. And AI amplifies whatever is already there.
AI is a mirror.
If someone is thoughtful, creative, curious — AI becomes an incredible tool, almost like leverage.
If someone is passive, purely task-oriented, AI will just check boxes for them.
Learning a language isn’t one-dimensional. It’s not “rules vs. speaking.” It’s this intersection of cognition, emotions, culture, habits, talents, confidence, curiosity, and real-life experience. AI can adapt to many of these layers and will probably outperform a lot of traditional teaching. BUT, what it cannot replace is the human desire to grow — that free will, that spark, that willingness to step into the unknown.
So yes, I think AI will give us smarter tools. But the deeper, holistic, 360° transformation (the kind that builds confidence, identity, presence, and authentic communication) will still ultimately depend on the person, not the tool.
That’s how I see the middle ground evolving:
AI will help us move faster, but the human element will continue to determine how far we actually go.
Thank you again for your question; it made me reflect more deeply. I’d love to hear your thoughts on your own experience with this balance.
It’s interesting how you articualte this nuancd perspective on grammar. How do you envision the 'middle ground' between foundational rules and conversational fluency evolving, especially with new AI tools for language learning, given your very insightful analysis?
First of all — thank you so much for taking the time to read and reflect on my article. It really means a lot to me that you engaged with it!
To your question (brace yourself.. it's a big long):
I think the “middle ground” between rules and fluency is already shifting — and it has always shifted. Language is not static. It evolves through culture, contact, misunderstandings, jokes, migrations, and yes, through “the masses.” Most of the big changes in language have never come from the purists, but from everyday people who simply spoke the way their world shaped them.
We sometimes forget that “correct grammar” is a very recent invention. Rules only became “official” once written language and printing standardized things — and that’s a tiny fraction of human history.
Now, with global connectivity, we’re seeing languages influence each other faster than ever. I live in Italy, and perfectly good Italian words are constantly being replaced by English ones — often incorrectly. And AI reflects this. AI doesn’t invent language out of nowhere; it mirrors society, with all its creativity and all its mistakes.
So how do I see the middle ground evolving, especially with AI?
Honestly, I see a split.
Some people are “waking up” — becoming more curious, intentional, reflective about how they learn and express themselves. Others are taking the copy-and-paste shortcut. And AI amplifies whatever is already there.
AI is a mirror.
If someone is thoughtful, creative, curious — AI becomes an incredible tool, almost like leverage.
If someone is passive, purely task-oriented, AI will just check boxes for them.
Learning a language isn’t one-dimensional. It’s not “rules vs. speaking.” It’s this intersection of cognition, emotions, culture, habits, talents, confidence, curiosity, and real-life experience. AI can adapt to many of these layers and will probably outperform a lot of traditional teaching. BUT, what it cannot replace is the human desire to grow — that free will, that spark, that willingness to step into the unknown.
So yes, I think AI will give us smarter tools. But the deeper, holistic, 360° transformation (the kind that builds confidence, identity, presence, and authentic communication) will still ultimately depend on the person, not the tool.
That’s how I see the middle ground evolving:
AI will help us move faster, but the human element will continue to determine how far we actually go.
Thank you again for your question; it made me reflect more deeply. I’d love to hear your thoughts on your own experience with this balance.