When a person asks another how the latter is, or how he or she is doing (which is, by the way, a greeting in essence; not a literal question), it is commonplace for the recipient to respond with, among other options, “good” or “well.”
It is my understanding that many neogrammarians take up sizable issue with those who answer, “good” because “well,” they maintain, is grammatically correct, while “good” is not. However, this belief is not accounting for some very important considerations about the rolls of these two words in the greeting context.
To appreciate the functions of such words, it is helpful to understand the precepts of two often competing, but not incompatible, approaches to grammar: prescriptivism and descriptivism. The prescriptive approach assumes that grammar is a set of rules for a language that establishes standards of correctness and incorrectness. (Frequently overlooked by the prescriptivist is the fact that correctness is generally established by whatever group is of high socio-economic status at the time and place such standards are implimented.)
The descriptive approach assumes that grammar is a set of rules for a language that establishes acceptability or inacceptability by native speakers of the language. The view takes for granted that the tools required for the determination of whether a construction is grammatical or not are latent in the language regions of the brain at birth, and that any native speaker is capable of determining the grammaticality of a construction. It follows that a construction’s acceptability will vary by region, sub-culture, individual, and the many other things that affect a person’s grammatical trends. (Frequently overlooked by the descriptivist is that a full application of descriptivism means that prescriptivism is also descriptivist because it has arisen naturally as an element of our culture.)
In short, if two native speakers of a language have a linguistic interaction which they both accept as grammatical, then it is grammatical under the descriptivist system, regardless of conventions that have been artificially overlayed. From a descriptive perspective, then, if Fellow A says, “Hey, how are ya?”, and Madame B replies, “Good, thanks,” then the word “good” is grammatical. If Madame B replies, “Well, thank you,” then this, too, is grammatical. Descriptively speaking, it is not ungrammatical to reply as Madame B has, as long as both participants accept the exchange.
A prescriptive analysis of this context makes the (not necessarily true) assumption that the exchange contains underlying elements that do not become apparent in the interaction, or, in linguistic terminology: the underlying elements do not surface. For example, Fellow A underlying says, “Hey, how are ya doing?” and Madame B underlyingly replies “I am doing good, thanks.” Neogrammarians know that adjectives modify nouns, while adverbs modify verbs. They also know that “good” is an adjective and “well” is an adverb. Since Madame B’s underlying sentence uses an adjective (good) to modify a verb (going), it is viewed as ungrammatical by the prescriptivist account.
The specific nature of underlying syntactic constructions, if such things even exist, is a ripe topic for speculation among linguists. The fact of the matter is that the surface form (the construction that is actually pronounced (or written, or signed, or otherwise made manifest)) is very plainly, “Good, thanks.” If one removes oneself from the notion of underlying elements, then one may notice that the adjective “good” does not modify a verb in this case. In fact, it doesn’t modify anything. Clearly, then, this construction does not violate grammaticality, even within the prescriptivist approach. This does not mean automatically that is grammatical, either. It is, after all, a sentence fragment, which is considered ungrammatical because it does not meet the minimum requirements of a sentence (a noun and a verb). (Which means that “Well, thanks” is also ungrammatical.)
Madame B may alternatively have responded, “I am good” (or, more likely, its contraction: “I’m good.”). This meets the minimum sentence requirements, but is still viewed as ungrammatical. Again, this ungrammaticality is based on the presumed presence of an underlying verb (besides the auxiliary “am”), as in “I am doing good.” But if one can once again abstract away from underlying elements and take the surface form at its face value, then “I am good” is no less grammatical than “I am black,” “I am hot,” “I am sick,” “I am starving,” “I am sticky,” or “I am [insert adjective of choice].”
Adverbial counterparts would hardly be grammatical no matter which approach one prefers: I am blackly, I am hotly, I am sickly, I am starvingly, I am stickily, etcetera. Except, of course for “I am well,” which seems perfectly grammatical within the prescriptive framework. It is further worthy of mention that words of adjectival form are more and more frequently applied to a sentence as adverbs. For example, people often say, “Drive safe, “Eat quick, or “Sleep deep.” This natural development suggests that “safe,” “quick” and “eat” are not in fact adjectives that are being used as adverbs, but adverbs that happen to have the same surface forms as their adjectival counterparts.
In the end, the prescriptive method for understanding grammar is weak on two major counts: First, it fails to allow for grammar as an innate and evolutionary function of human beings. Second, it relies too heavily on assumptions about supposed underlying elements. It would do grammarians and prescriptivists well to consider these issues before going out of their ways to correct a person.
