This article examines the concept of rupture through the prism of discourses on linguistic norms and usage. More specifically, the starting point of this study is to compare (or, rather, in this case, contrast) authoritative discourses regarding “non-conformist”, even transgressive, language productions, on the one hand, and so-called ordinary discourses, on the other hand. The main hypothesis is that ordinary speakers do not wait for scholarly discourses to categorize their language usage. This article thus serves as a window to revealing and understanding the way ordinary speakers perceive, conceptualize or even idealize things as far as language is concerned. It evaluates the degree to which they accept/reject a number of transgressive phenomena (both on the morpholexical and syntactic levels), and their criteria for doing so, by studying the epilinguistic discourses solicited from two groups of students.