Prescriptivism vs Descriptivism

Discussion in 'Discussion' started by Clawtooth, Nov 30, 2012.

  1. Clawtooth Keelah se'lai!

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Rannoch
    154
    So, I know it isn't really my custom to post in discussion, or at all of late (trying to get back into the swing of things lol), but we were discussing something in my linguistics class the other day and I thought it would be an interesting point of discussion.

    The discussion concerned the debate between Precriptivism and Descriptivism in grammar. Before I move on I should gloss these two terms:

    Prescriptivism: When one bases their grammar of a language on prescribed rules set down by a "higher authority".​

    Descriptivism: When one records the grammar of a language by documenting rules which describe what speakers of a language do instinctively.​

    Now, the majority of you will not, perhaps, have been aware of descriptivism up until this point, but I am certain you will have encountered prescriptivism, perhaps even on this very forum.

    An good example of the marked difference a precriptivist and descriptivist standpoint can be seen in the common structure used when refering to yourself and someone else:

    Let's have some examples-

    Julia and I went to the park. [A]​
    Julia and me went to the park.​
    Me and Julia went to the park. [C]​
    I and Julia went to the park. [D]​

    Now, those of you with a knowledge of prescriptivist rules will tell you that from that standpoint, [A] is the only validly grammatical sentance out of these four. This is because there is a precribed rule which states that "I" must be used if the first person singular is the subject, or part of the subject of a sentance. There is also another rule which states that one should always place oneself after others in subject constructions involving oneself and other people.

    However, as a natice speaker of the English language, I find saying "Julia and I" slightly unnatural. If I were in a formal setting, then I would likely use that construction because of tone, I want to make a good impression or whatever. If, however, I was in a more relaxed setting with friends, I would likely use [C], or perhaps .

    It is interesting to note, however, that both find [D] slighlty unnatural.

    So why, one must ask, do people feel the need to impose such rules as these on people, even in relaxed settings? Surely those who are fluent in a language have some underlying, innate knowledge of its structure and what's acceptable? I can see a case for prescriptivism in a few places:

    - When teaching somone a language as a second language (i.e. not their native tongue), it can be usefult o use prescriptive rules to teach them the basic structure of a language. However, it should be careful when doing so that it is emphasised that native speakers will find it strange if you don't speak idiomatically, and that this is something which only comes from emmersion in a language amongst natice speakers.​

    - In formal writing, for example accademic essays, precriptivist rules are very much part of the academic style. It creates a certain tone which makes one's writing be taken more "seriously" perhaps be seen as more sophisticated.​

    However, this still doesn't clear up the question of why people still hold others to these rules. You see COUNTLESS examples of this on the internet, where people accuse others of "bad grammar", when really - in an informal setting which I HOPE the internet is seen as - it's not very appropriate for the tone of the setting.

    So, I suppose there are a few questions I'd like to discuss: what is your stance on grammar? where is it appropriate to enforce precriptivist rules and why, and where is inappropriate? Really anything at all to do with this subject, I'd be happy to hear your thoughs.

    How do I end posts?
    *shrug*.
     
  2. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Lol, couldn' t help it. I was taught English prescriptively. I occasionally crossed a few more relaxed expressions here and there and have been punished for using them in my exams, not being a native English speaker it' s harder for me to tell them apart.

    Until recently I think the overall convention was written = prescriptive, oral = descriptive. The emergence of cell phones and of the Internet allowed the descriptive language to bleed into written language more than ever before.

    Sometimes bad grammar is really phonetic writing (you' re/your), picking the wrong one conveys a meaning that has nothing to do with what you had in mind. Other times bad grammar has nothing to do with the way people speak around you, it just shows you don' t read much.

    Because if you get too informal people will have trouble understanding you, which kinda defeats the purpose of language (at least if your goal was to communicate rather than just expressing yourself). If we see mistakes too often we pick them up over time, the same way we pick up accents. That' s what we do, we instinctively emulate the people surrounding us.

    I noticed that even journalists make more and more mistakes, so I understand why some would think putting the spotlight back towards prescriptive language is necessary. Protecting that common base is part of protecting our national identity. For instance I know for a fact that Quebec is more allergic to Anglicisms than France, for reasons that are kinda obvious.
     
  3. What? 『 music is freedom 』

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Surfing de Broglie waves
    2,756
    This, generally.

    I hold grammar to the standard of being able to communicate a message in most contexts, per my own opinions. What this means is that you can throw leetspeak in OSV form at me or some such and I would not really mind -- I would find it odd, but not mind, in a casual setting (though I may probably point out how strange it would be). Generally however, prescriptivism exists, as Patman said earlier, to standardize the language to the point where it is generally accessible to its speakers. If everything is descriptively based, we would have what I call the German-Dutch Dialect Continuum problem (to put it simply, some northern German dialects are actually much more mutually intelligible with some Dutch dialects in comparison to southern German dialects even though it is all German). The standardization of prescriptivism allows all speakers to be able to understand each other on a general basis, and thus it in important to learn -- much more so in written language. Prescriptivism, really, can enhance various aspects of a modern day society. It would also help if your orthography made sense so you do not end up like Burmese.

    But what about descriptivism? Descriptivism is definitely a good thing -- it helps evolve the language and adds variations to it. If prescriptivism is the plain pound cake, then descriptivism would be the icing or fondant or whatever other elegant decorations you place on the cake to make it special and unique. Descriptivism is appropriate enough to communicate -- especially orally, and this is generally why dialects and variations exist. Descriptivism can really be considered the engine and true heart to a language. If humans communicate primarily through speech, then descriptivism in the form of idiomatic expressions and the like is quite important when learning any language. Of course, it becomes a bit unnecessary when delving into formal use, but it is a good way of showcasing the nuances of a language.

    But they both have their drawbacks. Excessive prescriptivism curtails a language's natural development at times. Or, alternatively, you get stuck with dated linguistic characteristics that can be troublesome. I would use French orthography as an example but I think of it as very pretty, though many a French-as-a-Second-Language student has shouted to the heavens in frustration over its spelling. Languages are like living things, and they slowly evolve as times change. Prescriptivism serves as a general skeleton. On the other hand, excessive descriptivism can be considered even worse because, as Patman stated above, the entire point of a language is communication, and with too much descriptivism things can become mutually unintelligible, especially without a standardized, prescriptive system.

    In general, I hold to it that any language should have focuses on both prescriptivism and descriptivism. A lovely way to allow a language to grow is to not only have one but both of these aspects, and to nurture both of them. Often they may get into conflict, but they can also work together, as prescriptivism standardizes and descriptivism creates -- a bit, you could say, like a musician and the musician's agent. I generally prefer to see prescriptivism in written work (excluding fiction and the like where either can be used for effect), and for prescriptivism to focus on writing in general in regards to languages, because writing is already a good enough standard set to paper. Colloquial/casual writing, like conversations on the internet, or conversations in person, can be as descriptive as necessary, really. Really, the preponderance of prescriptivist attitude in a colloquial setting could perhaps be attributed to just general language purism which has existed as long as standardized language regulations have. People can get picky about languages because they may feel that the entire point of a language is to allow easy communication, and bringing descriptive factors into it can be troublesome in conveying a message. Alternatively, they are just nitpicky.

    It is interesting to note, however, that English is one of the few major international languages that does not have a regulation committee, unlike a huge amount of other languages. Prescriptivism is more easily carried out through language regulation committees -- it is no wonder we have such odd differences in spelling/orthography/even grammar from time to time!
     
  4. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Language is to communicate. If the speaker can convey their meaning to their audience, then the actual grammar to get their is almost irrelevant.

    Military communication is comprised largely of coded messages, succinctly giving information to a specific party and excluding others. It can give detailed information in the smallest amount of information. It's surprising just how universal one letter can be used in a variety of ways.

    Text language is almost an evolution of military communication, in that it uses small 'codes' in order to convey large amounts of information, like SOS to LOL. It's a change for the public, for the more hectic life we all now live in.

    Language evolves, grammar will evolve, the language we speak now won't be the exact one our descendants speak in 500 years. At least I very much doubt it (then again i'm no expert on the whole changing of languages and everything).

    Things are only inappropriate if someone considers them to be, or when you're directing it to someone who lacks the knowledge to understand it. Otherwise, use it anyway you like.
     
  5. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672


    Unless we grow extinct, yeah, that' s why the evolution of language is often used to illustrate biological evolution metaphorically.