The relevance of the notion of normativeness (i.e. it pertains to a norm regarded as the standard of correctness in speech) for many people and linguists rests on the fact that only one or two varieties of the English language act as a model or norm, typically Standard English. I believe that, while that reference to the norm is somewhat linguistically and pedagogically necessary, particularly as far as language acquisition and second language learning are concerned, it is arguably a minority use and greater emphasis ought to be laid on describing non-standard varieties of the language at the morphosyntactic level. A large number of dialectologists and sociolinguists have been carrying out research on varieties of English and dialects other than Standard British English or General American, but I seek to bolster interest in analyzing the grammar of non-standard English in utterer-centered terms. An important topic in the study of non-standard varieties of English is the distance there may be between the core system of the English language and the actual linguistic realization of it. There is evidence of two competing forces, one centripetal and one centrifugal with a risk of fragmenting. One of the issues relating to the notion of linguistic norm is, therefore, the status of observed irregularities in language behavior, and whether one can reasonably deem these “errors” or “mistakes”, since native speakers perform them and by essence people who speak their mother tongue do not make mistakes. These irregularities may reflect inadequate competence as regards the norm, but they generally do not question the grammaticality of the performance, which is, I argue, intuitive. Thus, the notion of grammaticality not only depends on linguistic knowledge, but also resembles a sometimes unconscious codification of the language by users. Their grammar corresponds to internalized patterns which may relate to a fluctuating norm.